Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/baltimorepeaceOOamerrich 


PROCEEDINGS 


««i  OF 


THE  THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE 
CONGRESS 


HELD   IN 


BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND 
MAY  3  to  6,  1911 


EDITED  BY 

ETTGENE  A.  NOBLE 

CHAIRMAN  OF  PUBLICATIONS  COMMITTEE 


PRICE,  75  CENTS 


-h^ 


'\ 


COMPOSED  AND  PRINTED  AT  THE 

WAVERLY  PRESS 

Bt  the  Williams  &  Wilkins  Compant 

Baltimore  ,  U.  S.  A. 


w 


OFFICERS 


President,  Hamilton  Holt,  New  York 
Vice-Presidents 


Lybian  Abbott,  New  York. 
Edwin  A.  Aldeiuiian,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
William  J.  Bryan,  Lincoln,  Nebraska. 
Theodore  E.  Burton,  Ohio. 
Nicholas  Mxtrray  Butler,  New  York. 
Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  Connecticut. 
Richard  Bartholdt,  Missouri. 
Alexander  Graham  Bell,  Washington, 

D.  C. 
James  Bryce,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Mrs.  Elmer  E.  Black,  New  York. 
Andrew  Carnegie,  New  York. 
Joseph  H.  Choate,  New  York. 
Winston  Churchill,  New  Hampshire. 
Austin  L.  Crothers,  Maryland. 
Mrs.  Bruce  Cotten,  Maryland. 
Charles  W.  Eliot,  Massachusetts. 
Mrs.  William  M.  Ellicott,  Maryland. 
John  W.  Foster,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Chief  Justice  Fitzpatrick,  Canada. 
George  Gray,  Delaware. 
Peter  S.  Grosscup,  Illinois. 
Myron  T.  Herrick,  Ohio. 
Joseph  F.  Johnston,  Alabama. 
Philander  C.  Knox,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Francis  B.  Loomis,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Seth  Low,  New  York. 
Theodore  Marburg,  Maryland. 
S.  C.  Mitchell,  South  Carolina. 
Hamilton  Wright  Mabie,  New  York. 
Franklin  MacVeagh,  Illinois. 
John  J.  McCook,  New  York. 
Francis  G.  Newlands,  Nevada. 
Thomas  Nelson  Page,  Washington,  D.  C. 
W.  Peterson,  Canada. 
Ira  Remsen,  Maryland. 
Elihu  Root,  New  York. 
J.  G.  Schurman,  New  York. 
Isaac  N.  Seligman,  New  York. 
James  Speyer,  New  York. 
Hoke  Smith,  Georgia. 
Robert  Strange,  North  Carolina. 
Albert  K.  Smiley,  CaUfornia. 
Jacob  H.  Schiff,  New  York. 
Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Massachusetts. 
Charles  R.  Van  Hise,  Wisconsin. 
George  G.  Wilson,  Rhode  Island. 
George  Woodward  Wickersham,  New 

York. 
Horace  H.  Lurton,  Tennessee. 
William  Allen  White,  Kansas. 


258062 


COMMITTEES 

Executive  Committee 
Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman. 


TuNSTALL  Smith, 
Edward  C.  Wilson, 
Eugene  A.  Noble, 


Samuel  T.  Button, 
Benjamin  F.  Trueblood. 


Executive  Secretary 
TtmsTALL  Smith,  "The  Preston,"  Baltimore,  Md. 

Publications  Committee 

Eugene  A.  Noble,  Chairman. 
James  L.  Tryon. 

Resolutions  Committee 


E.  H.  Griffin, 
Hamilton  Holt, 
W.  W.  Willoughby, 
TuNSTALL  Smith, 
Theodore  E.  Burton, 


Wm.  a.  Boykin, 
W.  W.  Cator, 
W.  D.  Gill, 
Key  Compton, 
Daniel  C.  Ammidon, 


Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman. 
W.  I.  Hull, 
James  Brown  Scoti 
Lyman  Abbott, 
S.  C.  Mitchell. 


Banquet  Committee 

Frank  N.  Hoen,  Chairman. 

E.  K.  Pattison, 
P.  Byrd  Thompson, 
W.  W.  Symington, 
Carter  G.  Osborne, 
0.  B.  Bidwell. 


A.  A.  J.  Miller, 
David  Weglein, 


School  Committee 

James  H.  Van  Sicbcle,  Chairman. 

Miss  Mary  E.  Holmes, 
Edward  C.  Wilson. 


J.  Henry  Baker, 
Thomas  H.  Bowles, 
Frank  H.  Hoen, 
Francis  T.  Homer, 
Douglas  M.  Wylie, 


William  F.  Lucas,  Jr., 


Finance  Committee 
Richard  J 


White,  Chairman. 

Francis  M.  Jencks, 
Eugene  Levering, 
Eugene  A.  Noble, 
Albert  C.  Ritchie. 


Entertainment  Committee 

Douglas  M.  Wylie,  Chairman. 

Mrs.  William  M.  Ellicott. 


DELEGATES  AND  ORGANIZATIONS 

The  following  States  were  represented  by  Delegates  appointed  by  their  respective 
Governors: 

Colorado,  8  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  John  F.  Shaproth 
Connecticut,  7  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Simeon  E.  Baldwin 
Florida,  10  delegates,  appointed  by  Hjs  Excellency,  Allen  W.  Gilchrist 
Georgia,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Joseph  M.  Brown 
Hawaii,  2  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  W.  F.  Frear 
Idaho,  3  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  James  H.  Hawley 
Kansas,  i  delegate,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Walter  R.  Stubbs 
Kentticky,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Augustus  E,  Wilson 
Mississippi,  20  delegates,appointed  by  His  Excellency,  E.  F.  Noel 
Missouri,  23  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Herbert  S.  Hadley 
Minnesota,  7  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  A.  O.  Eberhart 
Massachusetts,  2  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Eugene  N.  Foss 
Michigan,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Chase  S.  Osborn 
New  Mexico,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  William  J.  Mills 
New  York,  10  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excelliency,  John  A.  Drx 
New  Hampshire,  5  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Robert  P.  Bass 
North  Carolina,  15  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  W.  W.  Kitchin 
Oregon,  8  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Oswald  West 
Oklahoma,  7  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Lee  Cruce 
Pennsylvania,  9  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  John  K.  Tener 
South  Dakota,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Robert  S,  Vessey 
South  Carolina,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Cole  L.  Blease 
Texas,  g  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  O.  B.  Colquitt 
Vermont,  5  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  John  A.  Mead 
Virginia,  $  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  William  Hodges  Mann 
Wisconsin,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  F.  C.  McGovern 
West  Virginia,  6  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  William  E.  Glasscock 
Wyoming,  3  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  Joseph  M.  Carey 
Washington,  $  delegates,  appointed  by  His  Excellency,  M.  E.  Hay 

The  following  organizations  were  represented.    The  corporate  name  and  name  and 

address  of  the  Secretary  are  as  follows: 

American  Peace  Society,  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Secretary,  313-14  Colorado 
Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

New  York  Peace  Society,  Prof.  Wm.  H.  Short,  Executive  Secretary,  507  Fifth  Avenue, 
New  York,  N.  Y. 

Pennsylvania  Arbitration  and  Peace  Society,  Dr.  Wm.  I.  Hull,  Secretary,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 

American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of  International  Disputes,  Theodore  Mar- 
burg, Secretary,  14  Mt.  Vernon  Place,  W.,  Baltimore,  Md. 


VI  DELEGATES  AND  ORGANIZATIONS 

Maryland  Peace  Society,  Edwabd  C.  Wilson,  Secretary,  1925  Park  Avenue,  Baltimore, 
Md. 

Ajierican  Peace  and  Arbitration  League,  Andrew  B.  Humphbxy,  Secretary,  31  Nassau 
Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Chicago  Peace  Society,  Rev.  Chas.  E.  Beals,  Secretary,  30  N.  La  Salle  Street,  Chicago, 
111. 

Connecticut  Peace  Society,  Rev.  Rodney  W.  Roundy,  Secretary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Pennsylvania  Peace  Society,  Miss  Arabella  Carter,  Secretary,  1305  Arch  St.,  Phil- 
adelphia, Pa. 

Buffalo  Peace  Society,  Frank  F.  Williams,  Secretary,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Peace  Society  of  Southern  California,  Robert  C.  Root,  Secretary,  619  O.  T.  Johnson 
Building,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Dr.  Carl  Relsey,  Secretary,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

American  School  Peace  League,  Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  Secretary,  405  Marlboro, 
Boston,  Mass. 

New  YorK  Italian  Peace  Society,  Giovanni  Daniele,  Secretary,  2039  First  Avenue,  New 
York,  N.  Y. 

Universal  Peace  Union,  Amos  R.  Ellis,  Secretary,  1305  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Peace  Association  of  Friends  in  America,  Miss  H.  Lavinia  Bailey,  Secretary,  Richmond, 
Ind. 

National  Assn.  for  Arbitration,  Mrs.  Belva  A.  Lockwood,  619  F  Street  N.  W.,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 

Washington  Peace  Society,  F.  L.  Siddons,  Secretary,  Bond  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Great  Lakes  International  Arbitration  Society,  Rxtby  M.  Zahn,  Secretary,  Detroit,  Mich. 

The  League  of  Peace,  Saml.  Beli  Thomas,  International  Secretary,  203  Broadway, 
New  York,  N.  Y. 

Bahai  Assembly,  Chas.  Mason  Remey,  Chairman,  151 7  H  Street,  N.  W., Washington,  D.  C. 

American  Group  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Robert  F.  Broussard, 
Secretary,  New  Iberia,  La.,  and  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

American  Association  of  International  Conciliation,  Dr.  Fredk.  P.  Keppel,  Secretary, 
SOI  W.  ix6th  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

World  Peace  Foundation,  Edwin  D.  Mead,  Secretary,  29  A.  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbitration,  H.  C.  Phillips,  Secretary,  Lake 
Mohonk,  Ulster  County,  N.  Y. 

Japan  Society  of  New  York,  Eugene  Worden,  Secretary,  165  Broadway,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

National  Committee  for  the  Celebration  of  the  looth  Anniversary  of  Peace  Among  the 
English  Speaking  People,  John  A.  Stewart,  Chairman  Executive  Committee, 
Wm.  H.  Short,  Secretary,  50  Church  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

The  Peacemakers  of  Washington,  C.  M.  Scartf,  Secretary,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Kansas  State  Peace  Society,  Orman  Emery,  Secretary,  Wichita,  Kans. 

Delaware  Peace  Sociesty,  Charles  S.  Philips,  Secretary,  1805  Monroe  Street,  Wilmington, 
Del. 

Friends  Peace  Association  of  Philadelphia,  Walter. Haviland,  20  S.  12th  St.,  Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Virginia  Peace  League,  Mrs.  R.  A.  Ricks,  Secretary,  113  N.  3d  Street,  Richmond,  Va. 

Rhode  Island  Peace  Society,  Wm.  B.  White,  Secretary,  Providence,  R.  I. 


DELEGATES  AND  ORGANIZATIONS  Vn 

Peace  Department  of  Women's  and  National  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union, 

Mrs.  H.  J.  Batly,  President,  Winthrop  Centre,  Me. 
Women's  International  Peace  League  of  America,  Mrs.  Mary  F.  Evans,  President, 

Care  of  B.  E.  Evans,  Port  Collins,  Colo. 
Conamittee  of  Peace  and  Arbitration  of  the  National  Women  Suffrage  Association,  Mrs. 

Lucia  Ames  Mead,  39  Newbury  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 
Young  People's  International  Federation,  Miss  Mary  J.  Pierson,  318  E,  isth  St.,  New 

York,  N.  Y. 
The  American  Scandinavian  Society,  Carl  Lorentzen,  Secretary,  507  Fifth  Avenue, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 
Ministerial  Peace  Association,  Rev.  J.  B.  Remensnydeh,  900  Madison  Avenue,  New  York, 

N.  Y. 

The  following  abstract  from  the  official  program  is  presented: 

On  Thursday  all  delegates  and  out-of-town  visitors  are  invited  to  be  the  guests  of  the 
Congress  at  lunch  at  McCoy  Hall,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  at  one  o'clock.  Delegates 
should  register  and  procure  badges,  on  arrival,  at  the  Headquarters  of  the  Congress, 
McCoy  Hall;  and  visitors  may  procure  tickets  to  the  luncheon  by  registering  and  giving 
their  home  address.  Delegates  may  also  procure  badges  at  the  Lyric  on  Wednesday, 
May  3,  imtil  2  P.M. 

The  Arundel  Club,  Charles  and  Eager  Streets,  has  generously  extended  the  privileges 
of  the  Club  to  women  visitors  and  delegates.  The  University  Club,  Charles  and  Madison 
Streets,  and  the  Johns  Hopkins  Club,  Monument  and  Howard  Streets,  extend  a  like  privi- 
lege to  men  visitors  and  delegates. 

Orders  for  the  printed  proceedings  of  the  Congress  (price,  75  cts.)  may  be  left  at  the 
Headquarters  of  the  Congress;  or  sent  to  the  Waverly  Press,  2427  York  Road,  Baltimore. 

Subscriptions  to  the  Banquet  (Five  Dollars)  are  limited  to  350,  and  will  be  received  by 
Richard  J.  White,  Treasurer,  10  South  Street,  before  the  opening  session  of  the  Congress, 
and  thereafter  at  McCoy  Hall,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 


PROGRAM 

FIRST  SESSION 

Wednesday,  May  Third 

The  Lyric,  Two  o'clock  P.M., 

Hamilton  Holt,  President  of  the  Congress,  Presiding  Officer 

The  PREsroENT  of  the  United  States. 

James  Cardinal  Gibbons, 

A  Prayer  for  Peace. 

The  President  of  the  Congress, 

A  League  of  Peace. 

Andrew  Carnegie, 

The  People  Who  lived  in  Darkness  Have  Seen  a  Great  Light. 

Dr.  James  A.  Macdonald,  Editor  Toronto  Globe, 

Peace  Treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 

Prof.  Leo  S.  Rowe,  University  of  Pennsylvania, 

The  Contributions  of  Latin  America  to  the  Cause  of  International  Peace. 

William  C.  Dennis,  Washinjgton,  D.  C, 

Compromise — ^The  Great  Defect  of  Arbitration. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Secretary  American  Peace  Society,  Boston, 

Events  in  Connection  with  the  Peace  Movement  since  the  Previous  Congress. 

SECOND  SESSION 

Wednesday,  May  Third 

McCoy  Hall,  Eight  o'clock  P.M., 

Ira  Remsen,  President  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Presiding  Officer 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer, 

Charles  F.  Thwing,  President  Western  Reserve  University, 

Peace  and  the  American  College  and  University. 

Miss  Eleanor  L.  Lord,  Dean  of  Goucher  College, 

War  from  the  Standpoint  of  Eugenics. 

Talcott  Williams,  Philadelphia  Press, 

International  Responsibility  for  Internal  Peace. 

Thomas  Stockham  Baker,  Tome  Institute, 

Education   and   the   Peace   Movement. 

(Not  present  in  person,  but  address  to  be  printed  in  proceedings.) 

Edwin  M.  Borchard,  Washington, 

Peace,  its  Evolution  and  Present  Status, 

W.  O.  Hart,  New  Orleans, 

Universal  Peace  Impossible  Without  an  International  Code. 

(Not  present  in  person,  but  address  to  be  printed  in  proceedings.) 


3^  PROGRAM 

THIRD  SESSION 

Thursday,  May  Fourth 

McCoy  Hail,  Ten  o'clock  A.M. 

Hon.  Huntington  Wilson,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Presiding  Officer 
Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 
Jakes  S.  Speyer,  New  York, 
Embargo  on  War  Loans 
Prof.  John  H.  LatanI,  Washington  and  Lee  University, 
The  Panama  Canal  in  Relation  to  the  Peace  Movement. 
(Not  present  in  person  but  address  to  be  printed  in  proceedings.) 
Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt,  Member  of  Congress,  Missouri, 
Universal  Arbitration 
Prof.  E.  H.  Griffin,  Dean  Johns  Hopkins  University, 

An  Argmnent  from  Hobbes  "Leviathan." 
Hon.  James  L.  Slayden,  Member  of  Congress,  Texas, 
Relation  of  the  United  States  to  other  American  Governments,  as  They  Are  and  as  They 

Should  Be. 

F.  W.  Boatwright,  President  Richmond  College, 

The  College  and  Arbitration. 

FOURTH  SESSION 

Thursday,  May  Fourth 

McCoy  Hall,  Two  o'clock  P.M. 

Topic:    The  Aims  and  Activities  of  some  of  the  Societies  participating 

in  the  Congress — ^Addresses  limited  to  ten  minutes  each. 

Hon.  Theodore  E.  Burton,  Senator  from  Ohio,  Presiding  Officer 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 

Hon.  John  Barrett,  Pan-American  Union. 

A.  D.  Call,  Conjiecticut  Peace  Society. 

Mrs.  Belva  A.  Lockwood,  National  Association  for  Arbitration. 

Alfred  H.  Love,  Universal  Peace  Union,  Philadelphia. 

Robert  Stein,  Washington  Peace  Society. 

James  Brown  Scott,  American  Society  of  International  Law,  The  Carnegie  Endowment 

for  International  Peace. 

John  A.  Stewart,  New  York. 

National  Committee  for  the  Celebration  of  the  looth  Anniversary  of  Peace  Among 

English  Speaking  People. 
W.  H.  Short,  New  York  Peace  Society. 
Rev.  Gilbert  Reid,  International  Institute  of  China. 
Mrs.  Elmer  E.  Black,  Henry  Clews,  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League,  New 

York. 
Daniel  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbitration. 
Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals,  Chicago  Peace  Society. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Peace  Society  will  be  held  at  the  close  of  this 
session. 


PROGRAM  XI 

FIFTH  SESSION 

Thursday,  May  Fourth 

McCoy  Hall,  Eight  o'clock  P.M. 

Rev.  Lyman  Abbott.  Presiding  Officer 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 

Dk.  E.  D.  Wakfield,  President  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa., 

The  Why,  When  and  How  of  Disarmament. 

Price  Collier, 

What  are  We  Doing  for  Peace  in  the  Far  East? 

Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  Boston,  Mass., 

Education  and  International  Peace. 

Prof.  William  I.  Hull,  Swarthmore  College, 

The  Abolition  of  Trial  by  Battle. 

Rev.  Milton  Fairchild, 

Law  and  Order  and  International  Peace. 

SIXTH  SESSION 

Friday,  May  Fifth 

McCoy  Hall,  Ten  o'clock  A.M. 

Eugene  A.  Noble,  President  Goucher  College,  Presiding  Officer. 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 

James  Brown  Scott,  Washington,  D.  C, 

The  Carnegie   Endowment  for  International  Peace. 

Dr.  T.  Iyenaga,  Japan, 

Peace  in  Asia. 

Allen  S.  Will,  Baltimore,  Md., 

Popular  Intelligence  One  of  the  Best  Preventives  of  War. 

Edwin  Ginn,  Boston,  Massachusetts, 

Education  for  Peace. 

Samuel  P.  Brooks,  Pres.  Baylor  University,  Waco,  Texas, 

The  Schoolroom  in  the  Peace  Propaganda. 

Prof.  Philander  P.  Claxton,  University  of  Tennessee, 

Universal  Education  as  a  Factor  in  International  Peace. 

SEVENTH  SESSION 

Friday,  May  Fifth 

McCoy  Hall,  Two-thirty  o'clock  P.M. 

Hon.  John  W.  Foster,  Former  Secretary  of  State,  Presiding  Officer 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 

Prof.  Samuel  T.  Dutton,  Columbia  University, 

New  Propaganda  for  Peace. 

Isaac  Sharpless,  Pres.  Haverford  College, 

The  Education  of  Peace  Men. 


Xll  PROGRAM 

S.  C.  Mitchell,  President  University  of  South  Carolina, 

America  as  Peacemaker. 

Prof.  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  Dean  Yale  University  Law  School, 

The  United  States  in  the  Peace  Movement. 

Rt.  Rev.  John  G.  Murray,  Bishop  of  Maryland. 

World-Peace,  Proper,  Practical  and  Profitable. 

BANQUET 

Friday,  May  Fifth 

Belvedere  Hotel,  Seven  o'clock  P.M. 

Hon.  Champ  Clark,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Toastmaster. 

The  Mayor  of  Baltimore. 

Welcome  to  Baltimore. 

Senator  Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant,  Member  of  The  Hague  Court, 

Co-operation  of  the  Nations. 

Rev.  Frederick  Lynch,  New  York  City, 

Some  Untabulated  Signs  of  World  Unity. 

Mrs.  May  Wright  Sewall,  Boston,  Mass., 

Woman's  Part  in  the  Promotion  of  Internationalism. 

Senator  Henri  La  Fontaine,  President  of  Permanent  International  Peace  Bureau  of 

Berne,  Switzerland, 
Internationahsm  as  a  Science. 
Speoal  Resolutions. 

EIGHTH  SESSION 

Saturday,  May  Sixth, 

McCoy  Hall,  Ten  o'clock  A.  M. 

John  Hays  Hammond,  Presiding  Officer 

Topic:    The  Interest  which  Business  Men  have  in  the  Peace  Movement. 

Address  by  the  Presiding  Officer 

John  Ball  Osborne,  Chief  of  Bureau,  Trade  Relations,  Department  of  State, 

How  Commerce  Promotes  Peace. 

Charles  Yates,  U.  S.  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey 

The  importance  of  the  Geographic  Delimitation  of  Boundaries. 

U.  J.  Ledoux,  Canada, 

The  Business  Man  in  World  Politics. 

Charles  Mason  Remey,  Washington,  D.  C 

The  Bahai  Movement  and  The  Occident-Orient  Unity. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals,  Chicago,  111. 

The  Patriotism  Required  by  an  International  World. 

Dr.  J.  W.  Magruder,  General  Secretary  Federated  Charities,  Baltimore,  Md., 

Peace  as  a  Prevention  of  Poverty. 


PROGRAM  xili> 

PROGRAM  FOR  SCHOOLS 

MARYLAND  TEACHERS'  MEETING 

Tuesday,  May  Second 

ASSEMBLY  ROOM,  WESTERN  HIGH  SCHOOL,  3  o'clock  P.M. 

Honorable  M.  Bates  Stephens,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 

Presiding  Officer 

Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead 

YOUNG  PEOPLE'S  MEETING 

Thursday,  May  Fourth 

ASSEMBLY  ROOM,  WESTERN  HIGH  SCHOOL,  3  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  James  H,  Van  Sickle,  City  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Baltimore,  President  of  the 
American  School  Peace  League,  Presiding  Officer 

Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead 

{Music  by  public  school  choruses) 


PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE   THIRD   AMERICAN  PEACE 

CONGRESS 

[Introductory] 

THEODORE  MARBURG 

The  aim  of  the  peace  movement  is  not  a  subject  of  contro- 
versy. Where  difference  of  opinion  enters  is  as  to  method: 
whether  armaments  or  courts  are  the  best  instruments  for  pre- 
serving peace.  And  here  the  militarists  have  been  put  on  the 
defensive;  i.e.,  armaments,  as  well  as  war,  are  universally  recog- 
nized as  an  evil  to  be  dispensed  with  just  as  soon  as  a  practical 
plan  for  their  suppression  presents  itself. 

War  involves  biological  and  moral  loss  as  well  as  economic  loss. 
The  reign  of  law  between  nations  would  promote  the  cause  of  justice 
by  extending  its  sway,  by  increasing  men's  respect  for,  and  love  of, 
justice,  and  by  strengthening  the  habit  of  doing  justice.  The  new 
system  is  already  partly  inaugurated  and  must  prevail;  but  arm- 
aments will  be  maintained  while  it  is  being  put  to  the  test.^ 

The  period  of  time  this  process  will  occupy  will  depend  on  the 
extent  to  which  men  direct  their  energies  toward  it  and  especially 
on  the  measure  of  attention  they  succeed  in  getting  their  states- 
men to  give  to  it.  When  conditions  are  ripe  the  act  of  a  single 
man  charged  with  power  may  advance  a  cause  a  full  generation. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  opportune  moment  is  allowed  to  pass, 
a  series  of  untoward  events  may  distract  and  discourage  its  advo- 
cates and  divert  the  popular  interest. 

The  most  pressing  peace  measure  before  the  country  today  is 
the  proposed  all-inclusive  treaty  of  arbitration  with  Great  Bri- 
tain.2  A  common  language,  literature,  and  kinship  of  institutions 
and  law,  all  offer  reasons  why  this  treaty  should  be  consummated. 

1  Richard  Bartholdt. 
•  Theodore  E.  Burton. 


XVI  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

These  two  countries  have  been  more  happy  than  others  *'in  recon- 
ciling and  adjusting  legitimate  authority  with  personal  liberty."* 
Such  a  treaty  will  not  only  insure  peace  between  the  two  contract- 
ing nations,  but  by  offering  an  example  which  other  nations  are 
bound  to  follow  "will  prepare  the  way  for  enduring  peace  through- 
out the  world."*  It  may  therefore  prove  to  be  an  epoch-making 
event. 

"The  only  way  for  a  man  to  rise  above  the  presidency  of  the 
United  States  is  to  ascend  into  the  international  realm. "^  This 
President  Taft  has  done  by  the  utterance  of  which  the  pending 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  is  the  outcome:  namely,  his  declaration 
in  favor  of  a  treaty  with  some  power  by  which  all  questions  not 
resolvable  by  diplomacy  shall  be  referred  to  an  arbitral  court. 
President  Taft  has  laid  the  axe  "to  the  root  of  international 
war."*  But  such  a  treaty  must  not  be  regarded  as  bringing  an 
end  to  war  at  once,^  It  is  only  a  step  toward  the  goal  "to  be  fol- 
lowed by  other  steps  as  rapidly  as  possible."  Now  that  mediation 
is  recognized  as  a  friendly  act  and  a  duty,  the  various  chancel- 
leries of  the  world  are  themselves  agencies  for  the  promotion  of 
peace.  Having  become  a  powerful  nation  the  United  States  has 
duties  to  discharge  to  weaker  nations  and  a  responsibility  for  the 
peace  of  the  world  in  its  neighbourhood.  With  the  aid  of  certain 
South  American  countries  it  has  during  the  present  administra- 
tion succeeded  in  averting  wars  in  four  separate  instances.**' 

A  great  source  of  war  today  is  found  in  the  governments  which 
"do  not  exercise  complete  control  over  their  people."  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  other  great  republics  in  the 
two  Americas  to  exercise  their  "kindly  and  peaceful  influence  to 
prevent  such  outbreaks."  Unfortunately  suspicion  is  cast  on  the 
motive  of  the  United  States  in  tendering  its  good  ofiices,  a  sus- 
picion which  is  baseless  because  we  have  ample  territory  in  which 

*  James  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

*  James  Cardinal  Gibbons. 
•Hamilton  Holt. 
•Andrew  Carnegie. 
^President  Taft. 
•President  Taft. 

*  Huntington  Wilson. 


MARBURG  XVll 

to  work  out  the  experiment  of  popular  government  and  there  is 
therefore  among  us  an  entire  absence  of  any  desire  for  aggrandise- 
ment of  territory.^"  While  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
a  state  has  been  a  prolific  source  of  oppression  and  of  war  in  the 
past,  it  is  equally  true  that  a  broad  rule  of  non-interference  is  un- 
workable.^^ Misgovernment  is  bound  to  lead  to  foreign  compli- 
cations. It  was  the  injustice  and  oppression  practiced  by  the 
Turkish  state  which  drew  down  upon  Turkey  the  vengeance  of 
other  powers.  If  just  government  had  obtained  in  Cuba  the  island 
would  still  belong  to  Spain;  and  unless  the  Johannesberger  had 
been  oppressively  taxed  there  would  have  been  no  South  African 
war.  Why  is  it  that  there  is  danger  of  interference  by  the  United 
States  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Mexico  and  no  such  danger  with 
respect  to  Canada  where  there  is  an  ever-growing  number  of 
Americans? 

Is  it  not  simply  because  of  the  difference  with  which  justice  is 
meted  out  by  the  law  and  the  courts  in  the  two  countries?  The 
modern  world  insists  upon  a  standard  of  government  as  well  as 
upon  a  standard  of  living.  ''Peace  rests  on  justice"  and  not  on 
the  "international  figment  that  the  internal  affairs  of  a  nation 
are  of  no  consequence  to  another. "^^  j^  cannot  be  secured  by 
machinery  which  leaves  "unavenged  and  unredressed  the  misery 
of  millions  and  the  worst  of  all  human  wrongs,  injustice  at  the 
fount  of  justice,  spoliation  under  the  guise  of  taxation"  and  the 
denial  of  rights  to  men.  This  principle  is  definitely  set  up  in  the 
Piatt  Amendment  by  which  the  United  States  requires  of  Cuba 
the  stamping  out  of  pestilence,  the  maintenance  of  order  and  the 
enforcement  of  contracts.  It  would  be  well  to  extend  the  prin- 
ciple by  organizing  under  an  international  commission  all  countries 
whose  protracted  internal  disorder  makes  of  them  danger-points.^' 
Such  a  commission  would  make  more  secure  the  independence  of 
such  countries  by  taking  away  the  excuse  for  interference  on  the 
part  of  a  single  power  whose  act  may  result  in  permanent  occupa- 
tion with  or  without  previous  intent. 

">  President  Taft. 
"Talcott  Williams. 
^  Talcott  Williams. 
"  Talcott  Williams. 


XVm  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

War  is  a  plentiful  source  of  injustice  and  suffering,  but  it  is  not 
the  only  source. i*  There  may  be  a  steady  denial  of  justice  which 
results  in  profound  human  misery.  In  time  of  peace  there  may 
be  actual  loss  of  life — as  in  the  massacres  in  Turkey — greater  than 
that  which  results  from  war.  War  is  to  be  condemned  especially 
because  it  is  such  a  source  of  injustice;  but  "what  we  are  seeking 
is  first  justice  and  next  peace. "^^  Disarmament  must  therefore 
follow  the  establishment  of  justice,  not  precede  it.  Men  laid 
aside  their  rapiers  when  they  found  they  were  safe  without  them. 
Just  so  armaments  will  drop  away  of  their  own  accord  when  they 
are  no  longer  needed. ^^  We  all  desire  to  see  the  rule  of  reason 
supplant  the  rule  of  force,  but  suppose  there  is  no  reason?  "You 
cannot  appeal  to  reason  when  facing  a  pack  of  wolves."  Within 
the  leading  nations,  as  a  rule,  there  is  internal  order,  a  love  of  just- 
ice and  respect  for  law.  Between  certain  of  them  the  rule  of 
reason  has  likewise  long  prevailed  in  external  relations,  and  as 
to  such  states  it  is  quite  safe  to  set  up  treaties  which  provide  for 
the  peaceful  settlements  of  all  disputes  between  them.^^ 

Ignorance  of  each  other  is  a  source  of  distrust.  Mixture  of 
upright  intentions  and  downright  ignorance  produces  folly.  We 
can  do  much  for  peace  by  simply  knowing  each  other  better. ^^ 
As  great  as  will  be  the  uses  of  the  Panama  Canal  as  a  commercial 
artery,  they  will  be  outweighed  by  its  usefulness  in  bringing  the 
nations  closer  together. i' 

The  Pan-American  Union,  devoted  to  the  development  of 
commerce  among  the  twenty-one  nations  of  the  western  hemi- 
sphere acts  upon  this  principle.  The  seven  million  people  who 
compose  Latin  America  are  looking  to  the  United  States  for  leader- 
ship and  sympathy  and  help,  and  the  Union  aims  to  be  the  chan- 
nel through  which  it  may  all  flow.^" 

The  frequent  internal  disturbances  in  South  American  coun- 

"  Lyman  Abbott. 
1*  Lyman  Abbott. 
^*  Price  Collier. 
"Ljmaan  Abbott. 
"Price  Collier. 
"  Champ  Clark. 
"  John  Barrett. 


MARBURG  XIX 

tries  must  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  in  international  relations 

they  have  displayed  forbearance  and  a  sense  of  justice  of  a  high 

order.'^     In  the  past  three  generations  the  map  of  South  America 

has  not  changed  nearly  so  much  as  the  map  of  Europe.     If  the 

methods  which  were  applied  to  Poland  had  obtained  at  the  end 

of  the  war  between  Argentina,  Brazil  and  Uruguay  on  the  one  , 

hand,  and  Paraguay  on  the  other,  the  latter  country  would  have  \ 

been  effaced  from  the  map  of  South  America.     Despite  the  fact  \ 

that  Paraguay  was  the  aggressor,  no  territory  was  taken  from  it. 

Its  victors  magnanimously  recognized  the  fact  that  the  conflict 

was  due  to  the  acts  of  a  dictator  and  they  refused  to  penalize  a 

people  simply  because  they  were  in  a  backward  stage  of  political 

development." 

In  South  America  it  is  not  so  much  the  conscious  desire  to  ap- 
propriate another  state's  territory  as  the  uncertainty  as  to  where 
the  boundary  line  runs  that  leads  to  difficulty.  The  dense 
tropical  jungles  of  the  interior  are  only  now  being  explored  and 
shadowy  territorial  claims  are  found  to  conflict.  What  is  needed 
is  a  geographical  delimitation  of  boundaries"  to  be  followed  by  an 
agreement  that  hereafter  in  the  two  Americas  "no  territory  shall 
be  transferred  as  a  consequence  of  war."^* 

Like  geographical  delimitation  of  boundaries  is  needed  in  Africa 
and  Asia.  For  example,  in  the  case  of  the  Chinese  Empire,  her 
"practically  unmarked  and  geographically  undefined  boundaries" 
extend  more  than  eight  thousand  miles,  abutting  the  possessions 
of  the  British,  French,  Germans,  Portuguese,  Russians  and  Jap- 
anese.** 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  should  not  be  used  as  an  excuse  for 
undue  interference  in  the  affairs  of  Latin  America  nor  for  im- 
posing on  it  our  own  views  of  government.*'  To  the  extent  to 
which  it  retards  European  immigration  into  that  region,  the  doc- 

"'  Leo.  S.  Rowe. 
^  Leo.  S.  Rowe. 
»  Charles  C.  Yates. 
**  James  L.  Slayden. 
*»  Charles  C.  Yates. 
*' James  L.  Slayden. 


XX  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

trine  is  injuring  it.  The  foreigner,  including  the  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  who  locates  in  a  Latin  American  country,  has  no 
right  to  claim  security  of  person  or  property  superior  to  that  which 
the  citizen  of  that  country  enjoys.  He  can  demand  only  the  equal 
protection  of  the  laws.  This  applies  equally  to  times  of  political 
upheaval  and  to  times  of  peace.  "If  the  forms  of  law  be  more 
rigorous  than  are  known  at  home,  if  their  manner  of  execution  be 
more  severe,  if  the  government  be  less  able  than  his  own  to  insure 
him  the  blessings  of  liberty,"  be  it  remembered  that  in  the  eye  of 
international  law  he  consents  to  this  order  of  things  when  he  enters 
the  land.2^  Spanish  American  countries  suspect  us  of  desiring  to 
control  their  foreign  relations  and  to  regulate  their  internal  affairs. 
"They  have  a  right  to  demand  that  we  shall  treat  them  as  we 
would  have  them  treat  us  if  they  were  strong  and  we  were  weak."^^ 

The  behavior  of  the  private  citizen  abroad  is  a  considerable 
factor  in  giving  direction  to  international  relations.  As  govern- 
mental action  is  influenced  powerfully  by  popular  opinion,  the 
impression  conveyed  in  foreign  lands  by  honest  dealing  and  con- 
siderate conduct  on  the  part  of  the  stranger,  as  well  as  the  color 
given  by  newspapers  to  events  in  foreign  lands,  are  of  much  im- 
portance.2^ 

The  good  relations  of  the  world  are  markedly  promoted  by 
candid  and  well-meaning  diplomacy,  by  acts  which  in  private  life 
would  be  regarded  as  gentlemanly  and  which  advance  interna- 
tional morality;  acts  such  as  England's  cession  of  the  Ionian 
Islands  to  Greece,  the  withdrawal  of  the  United  States  from  Cuba 
after  the  latter  had  been  aided  in  the  difficult  task  of  establish- 
ing an  independent  government,  and  the  repayment  by  the  United 
States  to  China  of  the  Boxer  indemnity.^"'  '^ 

If  international  institutions  eventually  furnish  as  satisfactory 
a  method  of  settling  disputes  between  nations  as  municipal  in- 
stitutions now  offer  for  the  adjustment  of  differences  between 

^''  James  L.  Slayden. 
*'  James  L.  Slayden. 
'•Huntington  Wilson. 
"  Robert  Stein. 
**  Huntington  Wilson. 


MARBURG  XXI 

private  individuals,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  public  war  will 
disappear  just  as  the  rule  of  private  war  has  disappeared.^^  The 
perfection  of  such  institutions  is  therefore  the  duty  of  the  hour. 
It  is  the  practical  means  of  attacking  the  problems  of  war  and  of 
armaments.  The  defect  which  has  characterized  arbitrations — 
namely  the  tendency  to  compromise  in  lieu  of  declaring  exact 
justice — has  been  less  marked  since  the  establishment  of  The  Hague 
Court  which  seems  to  feel  its  responsibility  to  act  more  as  a  court 
and  less  as  an  agent  merely  to  compose  differences.  An  analysis 
of  nine  decisions  by  the  court  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  only  one, 
the  Casablanca  decision,  is  a  manifest  compromise,  that  two  others 
are  affected  with  the  spirit  of  compromise,  and  that  the  remaining 
six  are  free  of  this  suspicion.^^  The  question  is  raised  whether 
compromise  should  not  be  left  to  the  field  of  negotiation  and  whe- 
ther a  court  should  not  be  held  strictly  to  the  law  and  the  facts. 
The  establishment  of  a  true  international  court  of  justice  might, 
in  course  of  time,  bring  this  about  through  the  gradual  neglect 
of  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration.  The  worst  form  of  com- 
promise is  that  which  colors  the  very  reasoning  of  the  court,  there- 
by ajffecting  the  development  of  international  law.  This  tendency 
is  encouraged  by  permitting  the  president  of  the  court  and  one 
other  ofl&cial  to  sign  the  award — as  under  the  present  Hague  con- 
vention— in  lieu  of  requiring  each  juldge  to  signify  separately  his 
approval  not  only  of  the  award  but  of  the  reasoning  of  the  court. 
The  element  of  compromise  in  arbitration  may  be  reduced  by 
letting  the  arbitrators  understand  that  unless  the  terms  of  the 
submission  are  respected,  the  decision  may  be  set  aside  by  a  higher 
tribunal  clothed  with  authority  to  entertain  an  appeal;  by  the 
adoption  of  a  code  of  procedure;  by  the  exclusion  of  nationals  from 
the  tribunal;  and  by  establishing  either  the  right  of  challenge  in 
the  selection  of  judges,  or,  better  still,  the  practice  of  selecting 
judges  by  direct  agreement  as  provided  in  article  46  of  The  Hague 
convention  of  1907.** 

"  William  C.  Dennis. 
"William  C.  Dennis. 
»♦  William  C.  Dennis. 


XXU  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  peace  movement  is  an  endeavor  to  substitute  law  for  force 
in  the  relations  of  nations,  to  do  between  the  nations  what  has 
already  been  done  within  the  nations.'^  To  what  extent  actual 
federation  of  the  nations  is  required  to  bring  this  about  is  at  pres- 
ent not  clear.  The  mind,  starting  with  the  analogy  of  a  federal 
state,  soon  enters  this  domain  of  speculation.  It  finds  a  measure 
of  cooperation  already  existing  among  the  nations.  It  finds  in 
embryo  certain  institutions  which  might  readily  be  developed  into 
federal  institutions.  Such  is  The  Hague  Peace  Conference, 
(which  will  probably  meet  hereafter  at  fixed  intervals,)  a  quasi- 
legislative  body  whose  members  are  appointed  by  the  executive 
branches  of  the  various  governments  and  whose  conclusions  have 
great  weight  with  the  home  governments.  Such  again  is  the  Inter- 
parliamentary Union,  an  annual  unofficial  gathering  whose  posi- 
tion it  is  proposed  to  strengthen  by  having  its  members  selected 
by  the  various  home  legislatures.  These  two  bodies,  if  joined 
together,  would  thus  be  constituted  on  the  principle  of  an  upper 
and  lower  house. 

Still  another  essential  of  a  federated  world  state  is  found  in 
embryo  in  The  Hague  Court  which  is  certain  of  rapid  growth. 
The  least  developed  of  the  three  great  branches  of  a  world  state 
is  the  executive;  though  its  beginnings  are  found  in  the  interna- 
tional bureaus  which  we  owe  so  largely  to  conscious  effort  on  the 
part  of  one  man,  Henri  La  Fontaine.  The  policing  of  Morocco, 
the  North  Sea,  and  the  Behring  Sea,  likewise  come  under  this 
head. 

Whether  we  shall  proceed  to  actual  world  federation  is  not  a 
problem  for  present  day  politics.  The  formation  of  the  American 
Union  out  of  a  people  speaking  a  common  language  and  inherit- 
ing common  institutions  was  a  simple  matter  when  compared  with 
the  problem  of  uniting  nations  which  have  common  interests, 
it  is  true,  but  which  are  controlled  by  widely  differing  motives  and 
ideals.  The  impelling  motive  for  the  union  of  the  American  colo- 
nies was  defense  against  an  outside  aggressor  rather  than  the  de- 
sire to  avoid  armed  conflict  among  themselves.     This  motive 

»» Hamilton   Holt.  ' 


MARBXJRG  XXUl 

cannot  exist  for  the  great  powers,  including  Japan  and  presently 
China,  because  no  formidable  outside  enemies  would  remain. 
Moreover,  is  actual  federation  necessary  to  the  world's  peace? 
If  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  toward  European  aggrandise- 
ment in  the  western  hemisphere  has  substantially  prevented 
European  countries  from  waging  war  here,  why  cannot  the  united 
will  of  the  great  powers  prevent  it  over  the  world  generally?^' 

The  creation  of  a  deliberative  assembly  which  shall  meet  pe- 
riodically to  help  regulate  international  relations,"  the  firm  estab- 
lishment of  a  high  court  or  courts  to  compose  differences  and  to 
interpret  the  regulations  declared  by  the  deliberative  assembly, 
together  with  an  international  police  to  operate  in  backward  coun- 
tries— a  body  which  shall  be  purely  a  police  and  not  a  military 
force — is  perhaps  all  that  is  needed  and  all  that  we  may  safely 
project  for  the  present.  Force  will  not  be  needed  to  induce  the 
more  progressive  nations  to  respect  the  award  of  an  international 
tribunal.  Furthermore  the  attempt  to  use  it  against  any  of  the 
leading  powers  would  be  disastrous.  The  principle  of  the  inter- 
national court,  once  introduced,  must  win  by  sheer  weight  of  its 
reasonableness.  No  nation  which  has  justice  for  its  guiding  star 
need  ever  fear  the  award  of  such  a  tribunal.  If  that  which  a 
nation  has  done  or  is  planning  to  do  is  just,  certainly  it  should  not 
hesitate  to  enter  it.  Under  such  a  regime  some  of  us  may  be 
restrained  from  doing  again  what  we  have  done  in  the  past; 
others  of  us  may  be  allowed  the  fulfilment  of  just  ambitions  which 
powerful  rivals  have  previously  forbidden  to  us. 

The  world  is  changing  its  mind  about  the  difficulty  of  submitting 
purely  political  questions  to  international  tribunals.  The  two 
Hague  Conferences  not  only  created  new  machinery  for  dealing 
with  international  disputes,  but,  by  that  fact  as  well  as  directly, 
greatly  enlarged  the  scope  of  arbitration  by  increasing  the  kind 
of  questions  which  may  be  dealt  with  by  arbitration.  Questions 
supposedly  involving  national  honour  actually  have  been  solved 
by  these  new  institutions  at  The  Hague,  namely  the  Commission  of 

"W.  O.  Hart. 
"  HamUton  Holt. 


XXIV  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

Inquiry  and  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration;  and  questions  of 
national  policy  so  often  turn  upon  questions  of  fairness  and  justice 
that  nations  may  soon  learn  to  submit  these  as  well.  Whereas  in 
the  past  peace  has  been  preserved  over  wide  areas  by  empire, 
i.e.,  by  force,  the  tendency  now  is  to  preserve  the  peace  by  leaning 
on  the  power  of  the  intellect,  i.e.  upon  reason  as  defined  by  some 
authorized  agency .^^  It  is  significant  that  we  are  beginning  to 
think  in  terms  of  arbitration  and  the  peaceful  settlement  of  dis- 
putes rather  than  in  terms  of  war.  As  international  institutions 
for  the  settlement  of  disputes  grow,  the  minds  of  men  will  turn 
naturally  to  them  when  difficulties  arise  and  the  possibility  of 
war  growing  out  of  such  disputes  will  not  be  the  first  thing  on 
men's  lip's.^^  *° 

Since  the  Second  Hague  Conference  the  United  States  has  been 
more  active  than  any  other  government  in  promoting  the  estab- 
lishment of  institutions  and  practices  calculated  to  make  war 
difficult.^^  Secretary  Root  negotiated  many  treaties  looking  to 
the  reference  of  future  disputes  to  arbitration.  Secretary  Knox 
has  taken  the  lead  in  endeavoring  to  bring  into  being  the  court 
of  arbitral  justice.  The  Congress,  by  joint  resolution,  invited 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  appoint  a  commission  to 
consider  the  question  of  armaments  and  the  question  of  cooperation 
by  the  powers  to  make  the  peace  of  the  world  more  secure;  and 
PresidentTaft  is  favoring  and  actually  negotiating  an  all-inclusive 
treaty  of  arbitration. 

In  respect  of  the  nature  and  enforcement  of  her  neutrality  laws, 
however,  the  United  States  has  not  only  not  kept  the  position  in 
advance  of  the  world  which  it  once  enjoyed,  but  has  fallen  mark- 
edly behind  the  best  practice.*^'  «  ^he  wholesale  participation 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  the  revolution  in  a  neighboring 
state  with  which  we  were  at  peace  is  a  matter  of  common  knowl- 
edge.    They  crossed  and  recrossed  the  frontier  with  arms,  seek- 

'*  Edwin  M.  Borchard. 
"  Frederick  Lynch. 
"Madelaine  Black. 
*^  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood. 
"  John  W.  Foster. 
*^  Leo.  S.  Rowe. 


MARBURG  XXV 

ing  temporary  refuge  on  American  soil  when  worsted.  The 
President  should  have  power  to  control  the  intercourse  with  other 
countries  so  as  to  avoid  having  American  soil  made  the  base  of 
operations  against  such  countries  whether  in  time  of  insurrection 
or  in  time  of  war.**  Our  neutrality  laws  were  put  in  their  present 
shape  in  1818.  President  van  Buren  (1833)  and  President  Arthur 
(1884)  both  urged  upon  Congress  a  revision  of  them.  Great 
Britain  visits  with  fine  and  imprisonment  the  enlistment  of  its 
citizens  in  the  forces  of  a  country  engaged  in  war  against  another 
power  with  which  it  (Great  Britain)  is  at  peace;  and  the  larger 
countries  of  Latin  America  have  followed  its  lead.  During  the 
recent  disorders  in  Uruguay  its  neighbor  Argentina  assumed  an 
admirable  attitude  in  this  respect.*^ 

As  against  the  adoption  of  strict  neutrality  laws  we  are  some- 
times reminded  that  the  American  Colonies  would  not  have 
achieved  their  independence  except  for  the  aid  of  the  French. 
But  the  important  assistance  which  France  gave  to  us,  it  must  be 
remembered,  was  an  open  and  public  act,  amounting  to  an  alli- 
ance against  England,  Lafayette's  greatest  service  to  us  was  in 
securing  that  alliance  rather  than  in  any  personal  service,  how- 
ever chivalrous,  in  the  field.  The  government  can  never  prevent 
its  citizens  from  aiding  a  foreign  cause  which  appeals  to  their 
sympathy.  But  backward  neutrality  laws  and  lax  enforcement 
of  existing  laws  certainly  engender  a  feeling  of  resentment  on  the 
part  of  foreign  governments  which  are  made  to  sufifer  by  reason 
of  them. 

America,  holding  aloft  ideals  of  liberty  at  home,  should  be 
foremost  in  a  liberal  foreign  policy.*^  Its  wealth,  geographical 
position  and  the  fact  that  England,  formerly  its  opponent,  is 
now  its  best  friend,  gives  it  less  excuse  for  failure  to  live  up  to 
the  highest  ideals  in  all  its  international  relations.*^  Its  actions 
should  fit  its  creed.  "I  believe  it  weakens  a  man,  a  society  or 
a  nation  to  have  purposes  that  find  no  plans. '  '*' 

**  John  W.  Foster. 
«  Leo  S.  Rowe. 
**  Price  Collier. 
"S.  C.  Mitchell. 
"  Price  Collier. 


XXVI  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

America's  people  are  the  children  of  so  many  lands  that  so  far 
as  blood  is  concerned  the  greater  part  of  Europe  is  their  mother 
country.  That  fact  should  excite  America's  interest  in  the  welfare 
of  Europe/^  Moreover  it  is  not  afflicted  with  an  excess  of  popula- 
tion for  which  an  outlet  may  be  required.  "It  is  in  the  power  of 
America  to  insure  the  peace  of  the  world."  This  is  the  biggest 
task  of  the  twentieth  century  and  "if  America,  richly  endowed 
with  energy  of  will  springing  out  of  popular  sympathy  with  pro- 
gressive causes  and  exhaustless  material  resources,  once  gets  a 
vision  of  the  active  part  it  can  play  in  bringing  the  blessings  of 
peace  to  the  world"  it  will  prove  resistless.^"  To  arouse  the  people 
so  that  they  will  take  up  this  question  in  earnest  is  a  long  and 
difficult  task.^^  "You  can  hardly  expect  people  who  do  not  exert 
themselves  on  the  side  of  honest  and  fair  dealing  in  local  and  state 
affairs  to  be  alert  or  enthusiastic  respecting  those  problems  which 
call  for  an  intelligence  or  a  patriotism  transcending  the  bounds  of 
state  or  nation.  They  need  to  be  impressed  with  the  moral  gran- 
deur of  a  world  united  in  seeking  the  good  of  mankind,  and  of  gov- 
ernments honestly,  sincerely,  devoutly  striving  to  establish  jus- 
tice."^^  It  is  the  duty  of  America  to  reconcile  outside  its  borders 
the  peoples  it  has  reconciled  within  its  borders." 

There  is  a  close  analogy  between  the  growth  of  law  between 
the  nations  and  within  the  nations."  Wrong  to  the  individual 
was  formerly  redressed  by  him  without  let  or  hindrance  from  the 
state.  Next,  the  wrongful  act  of  the  individual  involved  a  col- 
lective responsibility  on  the  part  of  all  related  to  him  by  blood, 
just  as  today  still  the  acts  of  malevolent  or  stupid  rulers  bring 
out  people  from  peaceful  pursuits  to  be  killed  on  the  battlefield. 
When  tribal  responsibility  succeeded  to  family  responsibility  an 
elaborate  system  of  money  compensations  took  the  place  of  pri- 
vate or  family  retaliation;  and  gradually  as  society  became  better 

"  S.  C.  Mitchell. 
»»S.  C.  Mitchell. 
«  Samuel  T.  Button. 
"Samuel  T.  Button. 
**  Henri  La  Fontaine. 
"  W.  I.  Hull. 


MARBURG  XXVll 

organized,  crime  and  misdemeanor  came  to  be  recognized  as  a 
wrong  against  the  body  politic,  something  which  it  was  the  busi- 
ness of  the  latter  to  punish.  The  struggle  of  society  to  regulate 
private  war  was  long  and  arduous.  The  trial  by  ordeal  of  fire 
and  water  allowed  to  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  the  trial  by  battle, 
both  practised  for  such  a  long  period  of  time  as  supposed  methods 
of  inviting  divine  intervention  in  favor  of  the  right,  are  looked 
upon  now  as  the  crude  inventions  of  a  stupid  age.  But  are  we 
not  equally  stupid  today  when  we  resort  to  war  between  nations 
as  a  means  of  determining  the  right  or  wrong  in  an  international 
dispute?  The  work  of  evolving  between  the  nations  a  system 
of  justice  such  as  obtains  within  the  nations  is  still  before  us.  We 
have  still  to  lay  down  the  principle  that  a  wrong  by  one  state 
against  another  is  a  matter  with  which  the  society  of  nations  must 
concern  itself;  that  the  International  Commission  of  Inquiry,  like 
the  grand  jury  in  English  municipal  law,  must  not  stop  with  the 
inquiry  but  must  evolve  eventually  a  body  which  shall  exist  for 
the  purpose  of  passing  upon  international  wrong-doing,  and  must 
present  the  culprit  for  trial  by  a  permanently  constituted  tribunal; 
that,  in  other  words,  the  society  of  nations  and  not  the  individual 
nation  will  set  right  an  international  wrong."  Under  such  a 
system  occasional  miscarriage  of  justice  may  be  expected  exactly 
as  in  municipal  law;  but  how  insignificant  will  this  be  when  com- 
pared with  the  wholesale  injustice,  private  and  public,  which 
flows  from  war.  So,  too,  must  we  expect  an  occasional  war  on  a 
mighty  scale  when  numbers  of  states  shall  be  divided  on  a  ques- 
tion, just  as  we  have  civil  war  today  within  the  state;  but  such 
catastrophes  should  be  increasingly  rare. 

A  modern  development  which  is  most  promising  for  the  eventu- 
al peace  of  the  world  is  the  growing  extent  to  which  political 
power  is  passing  from  a  ruling  class  into  the  hands  of  the  people, 
from  those  who  stand  to  gain  by  war  to  those  who  forever  stand 
to  lose  by  it." 

Immanuel  Kant  remarked  long  ago  that  wars  would  not  cease 

«W.  I.  Hull. 
w  Allen  S.  Will. 


XXVUl  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

till  autocratic  government  ceased.  The  problem  now  is  to  get 
the  people  to  think  on  their  political  affairs  and  not  follow  their 
leaders  blindly.  It  is  the  informed  will  of  the  people  and  not  the 
emotional  will  of  the  people  that  must  lead  to  higher  things  in 
the  people  are  still  the  last  body  to  trust  when  the  war  spirit  is 
government.  Even  today  in  the  very  best  governed  countries 
abroad.  The  most  conservative  body  in  a  democracy  is  the 
elective  cabinet.  Its  chief  and  its  members  know  that  no  matter 
what  the  popular  passion  or  the  passing  vagaries  of  the  legisla- 
ture, it  is  they,  the  cabinet,  who  will  be  pilloried  before  history 
and  held  responsible  for  an  unjust  or  disastrous  war. 

This  state  of  things  may  be  changed.  The  dangerous  flaming 
up  of  popular  passion  into  an  appetite  for  war  is  possible  only 
because  the  masses  do  not  measure  the  consequences  either  of 
war  or  peace.  They  are  too  quick  to  rush  to  war,  and,  if  reverses 
come,  are  too  quick  to  tire  of  it.  There  is  still  unreasoning  assent 
to  the  leadership  of  demagogues.  The  average  man  "has  the 
impression  that  he  is  not  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts  and  that, 
if  he  did  know  them,  he  would  not  be  qualified  to  reach  a  proper 
conclusion"  about  war  and  peace.  When  war  is  threatening  the 
people  should  be  made  to  realize  how  absurd  it  is  to  take  "one 
hundred  thousand  lives  to  settle  a  question  which  can  be  better 
adjusted  without  the  loss  of  any."" 

In  private  afifairs  the  settlement  of  disputes  by  reference  to  an 
impartial  tribunal  has  for  centuries  been  an  accepted  principle: 
"the  strongest  minds  in  the  world  have  long  given  their  best 
thought  to  its  application. "58  xhe  invention  of  man  which  sup- 
plied the  tribunal  for  individuals  must  in  time  prove  adequate  to 
the  task  of  creating  a  similar  tribunal  for  the  nations. 

The  present  suspicions  and  hostile  attitude  of  states  is  por- 
trayed in  the  vast  war  preparations  and  in  actual  conflicts.  The 
recent  decade,  1895-^1905,  has  been  the  most  warlike  since  Water- 
loo. "In  fact  the  most  disquieting  and  discouraging  feature 
of  the  moral  and  political  life  of  our  time  is  the  profound  dis- 

"  Allen  S.  Will. 
"John  G.  Murray. 


MARBURG  XXIX 

trust  with  which  the  leading   nations  of  the  world   regard  one 
another."" 

Europe  has  for  many  centuries  been  a  greater  ofifender  in  re- 
spect of  war  than  Asia.^*'  In  Europe  military  power  has  long 
been  an  essential  to  national  greatness.  Japan's  rapid  develop- 
ment in  the  arts  of  peace  brought  to  her  no  such  recognition  among 
the  powers  as  did  the  conduct  of  two  successful  wars.  A  coalition 
of  European  powers  seemed  bent  on  the  partition  of  China. 
Territory  was  seized,  railway  and  mining  concessions  demanded, 
and  the  Chinese  Empire  actually  mapped  out  into  spheres  of 
influence.  It  was  only  by  waging  war  against  the  principal 
aggressor   that   Japan   succeeded  in   stopping  the   movement.®^ 

The  state  of  war  conceived  by  Hobbes  in  the  Leviathan  as  the 
condition  of  man  previous  to  the  social  compact  is  found  in  inter- 
national relations  in  the  twentieth  century.^^  j^  was  by  surren- 
dering certain  liberties  that  primitive  society  rose  out  of  the  con- 
dition of  private  war,  the  institution  of  the  state  presupposing  a 
tacit  compact  under  which  men  mutually  agree  to  abstain  from 
certain  acts  for  the  sake  of  the  general  good.  It  was  the  need  of 
defense  against  a  common  enemy  more  than  the  love  of  justice 
or  desire  for  peace  and  order  within  the  group  which  gave  rise  to 
primitive  organization  and  eventually  to  the  state.  Group 
struggle,  which  arose  early  in  the  history  of  animal  life,  called  for 
cooperation  which  could  only  arise  with  the  development  of  altru- 
istic qualities  and  obedience  to  a  common  superior.  The  inter- 
dependence of  nations  has  not  yet  reached  a  point  where  one 
state  may  not  dispense  with  the  cooperation  of  others.  This 
fact  helps  to  explain  the  continuance  of  a  state  of  war  among  na- 
tions long  after  private  war  has  ceased.  In  order  to  rise  out  of 
the  intolerable  condition  of  war  in  which  the  nations  as  such  still 
labor,  there  must  be  a  general  surrender  of  certain  privileges  at 
present  still  regarded  as  essential  elements  of  sovereignty.  Whe- 
ther it  will  be  a  group  movement  undertaken  to  protect  the  inter- 
ests of  the  more  liberal-minded  against  the  stubbornness  of  cer- 

"E.  H.  Griffin. 
•"  F.  lyenaga. 
"  F.   lyenaga. 
"  E.  H.  Griffin. 


XXX  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tain  powerful  entities  which  insist  on  continuing  in  the  old  con- 
dition of  armed  peace,  or  whether  it  will  develop  through  general 
cooperation  of  all  the  leading  powers,  depends  on  the  men  who 
are  guiding  the  destinies  of  the  several  states  as  well  as  on  the 
general  public  sentiment  which  a  statesman  in  the  end  is  com- 
pelled to  obey.  *'It  is  through  some  wisely  conceived  applica- 
tion of  this  idea" — the  idea  of  the  surrender  of  certain  rights  by 
tacit  or  express  compact  such  as  took  place  when  the  American 
Union,  the  Swiss  Confederation  and  the  German  Empire  were 
formed — "that  the  peace  of  nations  is  to  be  safeguarded.^'  An 
indispensable  feature  of  such  a  regime,  whether  it  be  secured  by 
all-inclusive  treaties  of  arbitration  or  by  a  governing  council,  is 
an  international  supreme  court,  because,  subsequent  to  public 
justice  is  the  tribunal  which  is  to  decide  among  the  complex  and 
varying  acts  of  men  what  is  just  and  what  unjust,  as  well  as  an 
agreement  on  the  standards  by  which  the  acts  shall  be  adjudged.^* 
States  could  safely  agree  to  submit  to  such  a  tribunal  all  questions 
except  independence.  "It  would  certainly  seem  reasonable  to 
say  that,  as  a  man  may  not  contract  himself  into  slavery,  so  a 
nation  may  not  submit  to  any  tribunal  the  question  of  its  own 
existence."" 

The  bearing  of  war  on  eugenics  is  disclosed  by  the  most  casual 
examination  of  history.  The  losses  in  war,  both  in  Greece  and  in 
the  Roman  state,  are  principally  responsible  for  the  decline  of 
Greece  and  Rome."  Mommsen  estimates  that  three  hundred 
thousand  Italians,  chiefly  Romans  of  the  best  stock,  perished  in 
the  Punic  wars.  Added  to  the  loss  in  war  was  of  course  the  judi- 
cial murder  of  the  most  talented  and  most  enterprising  in  Greece, 
due  to  the  jealousy  of  princes,  and  the  wholesale  proscriptions 
in  Rome,  where,  on  one  occasion,  ninety  senators  and  twenty- 
six  hundred  knights,  and  on  another,  one  hundred  senators  and 
two  thousand  knights  were  the  victims.  The  decline  of  the 
Roman  Empire  was  physical  rather  than  moral;  it  perished  he- 

«  E.  H.  Griffin. 
"  E.  H.  Griffin. 
«  E.  H.  Griffin. 
••Eleanor  L.  Lord. 


MARBURG  XXXI 

cause  the  Roman  stock  was  killed  off.  This  reversed  selection, 
as  David  Starr  Jordan  has  termed  it,  has  gone  on  throughout 
European  history.®' 

Internationalism  was  born  of  intercourse.  It  practically  did 
not  exist  in  the  days  when  travel  and  communication  were  difficult 
and  costly.  Improvement  of  transportation,  leading  to  the  enor- 
mous steady  flow  of  persons,  commodities  and  ideas  from  nation 
to  nation,  is  the  force  which  is  making  for  better  relations  between 
the  peoples  of  the  earth. "^  Nationality  is  no  longer  as  preponder- 
ant a  bond  of  union  among  men  as  formerly.  Strata  of  interests, 
extending  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  nation,  constitute  a  warp 
and  woof  which  are  slowly  weaving  mankind  into  a  united  whole. 
Out  of  the  practical  need  of  removing  hindrances  to  communica- 
tion and  of  protecting  property  and  rights  beyond  the  borders  of 
one's  own  country  have  grown  the  numerous  international  bureaus. 
Supplementing  these  are  the  societies  designed  to  promote  the 
interests  of  a  particular  science,  art  or  industry.  There  exist 
today  over  three  hundred  International  institutions,  and  every 
meeting  or  congress  of  an  international  character  is  making  for 
peace."  The  Central  Office  of  International  Associations  at 
Brussels  convoked  in  1910  the  first  congress  of  such  associations; 
one  hundred  and  thirty-six  separate  organizations  were  repre- 
sented. Conscious  effort,  supplementing  the  natural  process, 
can  promote  and  quicken  the  growth  of  international  bureaus  and 
associations. 

The  annual  value  of  international  commerce  today  is  thirteen 
thousand  five  hundred  milhon  dollars,  to  which  must  be  added  the 
international  transactions  involved  in  navigation,  railway  traffic, 
telegraph,  financial  investments  abroad,  remittances  on  account  of 
them,  remittances  by  emigrants  and  the  money  expended  in  travel 
abroad. '° 

The  thorough  commercial  organization  effected  by  business  men 
indicates  what  could  be  accomplished  by  the  great  world  of  busi- 

"  Eleanor  L.  Lord. 
•*  Henri  La  Fontaine. 
•'  Henri  La  Fontaine. 
"» John  Ball  Osborne. 


ZXXU  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ness  for  peace  provided  it  gave  serious  attention  to  the  problem. 
In  many  European  countries  associations  of  business  men,  be- 
sides furthering  local  interests,  are  consulted  through  their  feder- 
ated organizations  by  the  commerical  and  industrial  departments 
of  the  government.  "In  Austria  the  Chambers  are  entitled  to 
four  seats  in  Parliament." ^^  In  other  places  they  supervise  ''the 
industrial,  commercial  and  vocational  schools"  and  public  docks. 
Through  the  International  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  is 
composed  of  the  various  national  chambers,  business  men  have 
been  instrumental  in  having  their  governments  call  three  inter- 
national conferences  relating  to  trade  matters. ^^^ 

The  business  man,  having  as  his  constant  aim  elimination  of 
waste,  sees  most  clearly  the  waste  involved  in  war  and  in  the  pre- 
parations for  war,  preparations  which  leave  the  nations  in  the  same 
relative  position  at  the  end  of  each  succeeding  year.  ^'  They  see  the 
inconsistency  of  preserving  the  natural  resources  of  the  country 
and  piling  up  a  legacy  of  debt  by  militarism.  They  recognize  the 
interdependence  of  nations,  the  prosperity  of  one  being  reflected 
in  the  prosperity  of  others.  They  realize  what  ameliorations- 
industrial,  philanthropic,  and  public, — would  be  made  possible 
by  diverting  to  such  uses  the  treasure  now  expended  on  arma- 
ments. Therefore,  when  any  practical  measure  is  proposed,  such 
as  President  Taft's  all-inclusive  treaty  of  arbitration  with  Great 
Britain,  they  are  found  zealously  cooperating.^* 

The  real  struggle  before  the  world  is  the  commercial  struggle. 
Europe  is  handicapped  in  this  by  the  mistakes  of  the  past.  If 
America  follows  in  her  footsteps  it  will  be  deliberately  throwing 
away  a  great  advantage  which  it  is  still  possible  for  it  to  enjoy.^^ 

China  might  be  saved  from  a  similar  burden  by  neutralization. 
If  the  great  powers  jointly  entered  into  such  an  agreement  with 
it,  China  could  feel  confident  that  the  agreement  would  be  faith- 

"  U.  J.  Ledoux. 

"  U.  J.  Ledoiix. 

"  John  Hays  Hammond. 

''*  John  Hays  Hammond. 

"  d'Estoiirnelles  de  Constant. 


MARBURG  XXXlll 

fully  kept,  and  could  then  bend  all  its  energies  to  the  development 
of  its  neglected  natural  resources.^' 

Heavy  foreign  investments  make  a  people  cautious  about  going 
to  war  with  a  country  in  which  they  have  such  investments.^'' 
The  Russian  loans  held  in  France  constitute  a  guarantee  of  peace 
equal  to  the  ''entente  cordiale."  In  the  light  of  this  fact  the 
present  practice  of  discriminating  against  foreign  securities  by  an 
extra  tax  and  by  forbidding  trust  estates  and  savings  banks  to 
hold  them  is  impolitic. 

Few  nations  have  within  themselves  the  resources  for  a  protract- 
ed war.  Japan  would  hardly  have  undertaken  the  struggle  with 
Russia  unless  assured  of  foreign  financial  support.  Certainly  she 
could  not  have  continued  it  for  many  weeks  unless  that  support 
had  been  forthcoming.  Therefore  an  agreement  among  the  lead- 
ing powers  to  discourage  the  placing  of  foreign  war  loans  in  the 
home  market  until  the  intending  belligerents  had  exhausted  peace- 
ful methods  would  act  as  a  deterrent  of  war.^* 

In  this  connection  it  is  significant  that  attempts  are  seldom 
made  to  place  government  loans  abroad  without  first  securing  the 
open  approval  of  the  chancellery  of  the  country  from  which  the 
loan  is  expected. 

ARMAMENTS 

The  expenditures  of  the  United  States  government  on  the  army 
and  navy  and  on  pensions,  the  legacy  of  past  wars,  amounts  to 
twenty-five  dollars  a  year  for  every  family  of  five  persons.  Inas- 
much as  the  incidence  of  taxation  causes  this  burden  to  fall  ulti- 
mately in  large  part  on  the  wage  earner  and  so  many  wage  earners 
even  in  our  best-conditioned  cities  are  on  the  border  line  of  poverty, 
the  tax  for  armaments  means  to  them  the  difference  between  a 
promising  and  a  hopeless  struggle  against  poverty. '^^ 

In  many  cases  the  initial  cost  of  a  United  States  battleship  is 
greater  than  the  value  of  the  grounds  and  buildings  and  produc- 

"  John  Hays  Hammond. 
^^  James  Speyer. 
"James  Speyer. 
"J.  W.  Magruder. 


XXXIV  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

tive  funds  of  all  the  colleges  and  universities  in  the  state  whose 
name  the  battleship  bears.  8°  This  is  true  of  Oregon,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Alabama,  Louisiana,  Georgia,  Nebraska,  Delaware,  Ver- 
mont, Rhode  Island,  Idaho,  Mississippi,  North  Dakota,  South 
Carolina,  West  Virginia  and  Montana.  The  annual  cost  of  main- 
taining the  largest  ships  is  over  three-quarters  of  a  million  dollars 
apiece.  There  are  but  few  universities  whose  annual  budget 
exceeds  that  sum.  The  total  cost  of  maintaining  the  battleships 
of  the  United  States  during  1910  was  a  little  over  twenty-four 
and  one-half  million  dollars.  The  total  revenues  of  all  the  colleges 
and  universities  in  the  United  States  for  1909,  from  tuition  fees 
and  productive  funds,  was  about  twenty-five  million  dollars. 
Taking  into  account  depreciation,  the  cost  of  the  ''thirty-eight 
battleships  for  a  single  year  is  greater  than  the  administration  of 
the  entire  American  system  of  higher  education."*^ 

We  may  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  the  world  already 
realizes  the  waste  of  armaments  as  well  as  the  horrors  and  injustice 
of  war  and  seeks  only  a  means  of  escape  from  them.^^  Institu- 
tions which  offer  a  substitute  for  war  may  be  set  up  by  a  few 
nations  and  used  by  few  or  many.  Progress  has  therefore  been 
made  along  this  line.  The  difficulty  with  the  question  of  arma- 
ments is  that  only  by  joint  agreement  of  all  the  great  powers  can 
their  growth  be  arrested. 

Russia  issued  the  call  for  the  First  Hague  Conference  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  stopping  the  growth  of  armaments.  Eng- 
land, France,  Japan  and  the  United  States  would  unquestionably 
favor  concerted  action  directed  to  that  end.  Austria  and  Italy 
would  follow  the  lead  of  their  ally,  Germany;  and  as  this  exhausts 
the  list  of  great  powers  it  is  therefore  on  Germany  that  the  world 
waits. 

So  long  as  Germany  declines  to  discuss  the  matter  of  an  agree- 
ment to  regulate  the  growth  of  armaments  the  question  is  not  a 
question  of  practical  politics.  If  the  time  be  ripe — as  many 
believe  it  is — for  such  a  step,  it  needs  only  some  great  German  with 

«» Charles  F.  Thwing. 
»» Charles  F.  Thwing. 
*'  Daniel  Smiley. 


MARBURG  XXXV 

a  mind  and  heart  equal  to  the  task  to  lift  this  burden  from  his 
own  country  and  from  the  world.  When  we  remember  how 
Germany  has  been  trampled  upon  in  past  centuries  for  lack  of 
military  organization  we  cannot  blame  it  for  wanting  a  strong 
army  and  navy.  But  a  frank  discussion  of  plans  with  the  nations 
might  disclose  the  fact  that  Germany's  relative  strength  as  against 
probable  foes  is  likely  to  remain  the  same  after  years  of  steady 
increase  in  military  budgets  and  that  an  agreement  to  limit 
expenditures,  to  say  the  present  budgets  even,  will  leave  Germany 
relatively  just  as  strong  and  save  millions  to  all  of  us. 

EDUCATIONAL 

The  educational  side  of  the  peace  movement  has  practical 
value  because  it  must  depend  ultimately  upon  the  attitude  of  the 
people  whether  the  peace  institutions  which  the  world  is  endea- 
voring to  set  up  will  be  respected  and  used,  or  whether,  in  moments 
of  popular  excitement,  they  will  all  be  brushed  roughly  aside  and 
the  nations  rush  to  war  despite  of  them. 

This  education  cannot  begin  too  early  in  life.  "As  the  boy 
stores  up  impressions,  prejudices,  sympathies,  so  the  man  legis- 
lates and  the  nation  makes  friends  or  foes."*' 

Of  course,  it  is  the  beauty  of  the  world  and  not  its  gloom  which 
is  to  be  pointed  out  to  little  children;  but  the  peace  question  may 
be  dealt  with  from  that  side.  Inspiring  in  the  child  a  friendly 
attitude  toward  the  world,  prompting  it  to  be  fair  by  acquiring 
the  habit  of  putting  itself  in  "the  other  fellow's  place,"  showing 
it  how  much  each  nation  owes  to  other  nations,  these  are  the  ideas 
which  make  possible  an  intense  patriotism  without  chauvinism. 

While  of  course  preserving  a  study  of  war  on  account  of  the 
important  part  it  has  played  "in  both  social  and  national  evolu- 
tion" it  is  highly  desirable  to  avoid  the  waste  at  present  resulting 
from  a  study  of  the  details  of  campaigns.** 

Help  children  to  realize  that  the  lessening  of  suffering  and  sav- 
ing of  life  are  the  heroic  things.     Cause  them  to  feel  profoundly 

"Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
**  Fannie  Fern  Andrews 


XXXVl  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  overwhelming  importance  of  justice  in  human  affairs  and  how 
little  the  ends  of  justice  are  served  by  war.  ''Prosperity  depends 
on  peace,  and  peace  depends  on  justice,  and  justice  depends  on 
far-sighted  organization."*^ 

Is  the  teaching  of  history  at  all  adequate  unless  young  people 
are  informed  of  the  leading  facts  about  the  Hague  Conventions, 
what  they  have  accomplished  and  wha:  their  promise?  Let  them 
know  how  much  their  own  country  has  done  for  peace  and  the 
things  still  to  be  striven  for,*^  Young  people  must  come  to  feel 
that  only  the  right  is  in  the  long  run  the  expedient;  in  other  words, 
be  given  a  moral  basis  which  alone  will  enable  them  in  times  of 
excitement  to  withstand  popular  clamor  for  war.*'  There  should 
be  conveyed  to  them  the  philosophy  of  law  and  justice,  its  mean- 
ing in  the  life  of  every  boy  and  girl,  beginning  with  the  laws  of 
the  schoolroom,  the  town  and  the  state,  and  proceeding  thence  to 
the  international  field  where  the  operation  of  justice  is  inter- 
rupted by  war.  **  The  teaching  of  international  arbitration,  human- 
ity and  brotherhood  is  already  prescribed  as  part  of  the  curri- 
culum in  the  primary,  secondary  and  normal  schools  of  France.*' 

But  it  is  during  the  college  period  principally  that  character 
and  purpose  take  shape.  The  college  and  university  represent 
homes  widely  scattered.  They  are  gardens  by  the  sea  whence 
wind  and  tide  carry  "seeds  to  fructify  distant  lands. "^°  War  is 
emotional  and  thoughtless.  To  cultivate  in  men  the  habit  of 
thought  is  to  undermine  the  institution  of  war.  The  college  pre- 
eminently stands  for  thought.''^  The  mind  of  the  under-graduate 
is  in  a  receptive  mood,  ready  for  ideals,  ready  for  noble  causes, 
weighing  motive  and  the  appeals  of  life.  "It  is  the  dream  time 
and  yet  the  time  when  impulses  harden  into  life  purposes."^' 
Great  public  causes  which  are  not  controversial  and  not  ephem- 

"  Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
"Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
*'  Isaac  Sharpless. 
"  Milton   Fairchild. 
*'  Fannie  Fern  Andrews. 
'"  F.  W.  Boatwright. 
"  Charles  F.  Thwing. 
"F.  W.  Boatwright. 


MARBURG  XXXVU 

eral  should  therefore  be  espoused  where  youth  congregate,  since 
nowhere  may  they  be  so  effectively  advanced. 

The  young  are  naturally  combative;  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance  is  not  apt  to  appeal  to  them.^^  But  show  them  that 
here  is  a  great  cause  with  its  roots  deep  down  in  the  past,  that 
Christianity,  which  moved  slowly  toward  the  abolition  of  the  slave, 
is  moving  likewise  toward  the  abolition  of  war;  that  causes  which 
were  formerly  fought  over  are  now  settled  by  arbitration  and 
inquiry;  that  certain  definite  institutions  which  are  calculated  to 
make  war  less  common  have  actually  come  into  being  and  are  in 
operation;  and  let  them  feel  that  in  the  light  of  the  recent  past  the 
cause  does  call  for  struggle  still — long  and  gigantic  struggle — 
and  they  will  become  interested. ^^  Show  them  that  today  still 
"Nations  as  soon  as  they  become  self-conscious  are  associations 
of  people  for  the  purpose  of  taking  other  people's  land"^^  and  that 
it  is  a  far  cry  from  this  to  a  family  of  nations  "united  in  interna- 
tional bonds  which  shall  make  it  at  once  the  duty  and  the  inter- 
est of  each  nation  to  seek  and  maintain  the  integrity  and  freedom 
of  every  other. "^®  The  peace  movement  in  point  of  practical 
achievements  has  only  just  begun.  Its  tasks  are  all  before  it. 
No  headway  whatever  has  been  made  against  armaments.  To 
the  establishment  of  a  court  of  law  for  the  nations  we  may  look 
forward  with  confidence;  but  such  a  court  cannot  function  wholly 
satisfactorily  until  the  nations  reach  an  agreement  on  the  subject 
of  the  law  which  the  court  is  to  administer."  Jurists  in  their 
private  capacity,  though  preferably  in  cooperation,  may  do  much 
toward  formulating  such  a  law,  its  formal  acceptance  by  the  na- 
tions coming  in  good  time.  The  firm  establishment  of  the  inter- 
national court  and  the  formulation  of  international  practice 
into  accepted  and  definitive  law  are  two  most  urgent  needs  to 
which  the  coming  generation  must  bend  its  energies,  for  "peace 
between  nations  is  as  impossible  in  the  absence  of  law  and  justice, 

<»  Thos.  S.  Baker. 

»*  Thos.  S.  Baker. 

•*  Poesche  and  Goepp,  quoted  by  Thos.  S.  Baker. 

M  Ethelbert  D.  Warfield. 

"  James  Brown  Scott. 


XXXVm  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

as  peace  is  impossible  among  men  in  the  absence  of  law  and  orderly 
administration." 

Procedure,  the  peaceful  means  by  which  rights  are  preserved 
and  wrongs  redressed,  must  be  extended  into  the  international 
field. 

We  need  furthermore  a  scientific  study  of  the  causes  of  the 
disease  of  which  war  is  a  symptom  and  an  examination  of  the  social 
cost  of  war  in  all  its  aspects"^ — biological,  ethical  and  economical. 


**  James  Brown  Scott. 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF 

The  Third  American  Peace  Congress 

At  the  First  Session  of  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress 
held  in  the  Lyric  Theatre,  the  Presiding  Oflficer,  Mr.  Hamilton 
Holt,  of  New  York  City,  introduced  as  the  first  speaker,  His 
Eminence,  James,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  as  follows: 

"On  Easter  Sunday,  1896,  Cardinal  Vaughan  of  England, 
Cardinal  Logue  of  Ireland,  and  Cardinal  Gibbons  of  the  United 
States,  issued  an  appeal  to  the  English  speaking  nations  of  the 
world  for  a  permanent  tribunal  of  arbitration  'as  a  rational  sub- 
stitute among  the  English  speaking  races  for  a  resort  to  the  bloody 
arbitrament  of  war.'  This  appeal  has  always  been  regarded  as 
one  of  the  many  great  forces  which  brought  about  the  First 
Hague  Conference,  that  Magna  Charta  of  International  Law. 
Throughout  his  long  and  distinguished  career,  Cardinal  Gibbons 
has  lost  no  opportunity  to  make  his  great  influence  felt  for  peace 
and  justice.  He  is  a  true,  constant  and  consistent  follower  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace.  I  now  have  the  great  honor  to  introduce 
to  you  His  Eminence,  James,  Cardinal  Gibbons." 

ADDRESS  OF  HIS  EMINENCE,  JAMES,  CARDINAL 

GIBBONS 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  shall  make  my  remarks.  Ladies  and  Gentle- 
men, as  brief  as  possible,  as  I  do  not  wish  to  detain  the  honored 
President  of  the  United  States,  who  is  soon  going  to  address  you. 
I  was  requested  to  offer  a  prayer  at  the  opening  of  this  great 
convention  of  peace,  but  I  regard  a  specific  invocation  quite 


2  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

unnecessary  on  this  occasion,  inasmuch  as  I  am  satisfied  that 
all  the  addresses  that  shall  be  made  from  this  place  today  will 
be  prayers  for  peace, 

I  assume  that  the  purpose  of  this  great  and  distinguished  gather- 
ing is  to  create,  to  promote  closer  and  more  friendly  relations 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  I  am  firmly 
persuaded  that  a  treaty  of  arbitration  between  England  and  the 
United  States  would  be  not  only  a  source  of  infinite  blessing  to 
both  of  the  nations  concerned,  but  also  will  prepare  the  way  for 
enduring  peace  throughout  the  whole  world.  There  are  many 
reasons  why  there  should  be  a  closer  alliance  between  England 
and  the  United  States.  We  speak  the  same  noble  English  lan- 
guage, a  language  by  the  way  which  today  is  more  generally  em- 
ployed than  any  tongue  in  the  civilized  world.  Not  only  do  we 
speak  the  same  tongue,  but  we  also  enjoy  the  same  literature; 
the  classic  literature  of  England  is  ours,  from  Chaucer  down  to 
Newman,  and  the  classic  literature  of  the  United  States  is  claimed 
also  by  England.  The  literature  of  both  countries  is  a  common 
heritage  to  both. 

And  again,  we  are  living  practically  under  the  same  form  of 
government.  The  head  of  our  nation  is  the  honored  President 
before  us.  The  head  of  England  is  the  King.  We  are  ruled  by  a 
constitutional  republic;  England  is  ruled  by  a  constitutional  mon- 
archy, and  I  venture  to  say,  without  any  disparagement  what- 
ever of  other  nations,  that  England  and  the  United  States  have 
been  more  happy  in  reconciling  and  in  adjusting  legitimate 
authority  with  personal  individual  liberty  than  any  other  nations 
on  the  face  of  the  earth. 

We  all  know  the  vast  dominions  of  the  British  Empire.  Eng- 
land's empire  embraces  about  ten  million  square  miles  or  about 
one-fifth  of  the  surface  of  the  globe.  Great  was  the  extent  of 
the  Roman  Empire  in  the  days  of  the  imperial  Caesars.  The 
Empire  of  Rome  extended  into  Europe  as  far  as  the  River  Danube; 
it  extended  into  Asia  as  far  as  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  and 
into  Africa  as  far  as  Mauretania.  And  yet  the  extent  of  the 
Roman  Empire  was  scarcely  one-sixth  of  the  British  Empire  of 
today. 


GIBBONS  3 

Daniel  Webster,  the  great  statesman,  about  sixty  years  ago 
made  a  speech  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  which  he  thus 
described  the  vast  extent  of  the  British  Empire:  *'She  has  dotted 
the  whole  surface  of  the  earth  with  her  possessions  and  military 
forces,  whose  morning  drumbeat,  following  the  sun  and  keeping 
company  with  the  hours,  encircles  the  whole  earth  with  one 
unbroken  strain  of  the  martial  airs  of  England." 

The  United  States  today  houses  one  hundred  millions  of  happy 
and  contented  people,  and  our  nation,  our  government,  exercises 
a  certain  dominant  but  still  more  a  very  salutary  influence  on 
the  many  republics  of  America  that  are  south  of  us.  We  all 
know  that  its  influence  is  not  to  destroy  but  to  save.  This  influ- 
ence is  not  to  dismember,  but  the  aid  of  our  President  is  always 
with  the  cause  of  peace  and  righteous  economy.  Oh,  my  friends, 
how  happy  will  the  day  be  when  those  two  great  nations  unite 
together  in  the  cause  of  permanent  friendship. 

We  are  told  in  Holy  Scripture,  that  when  the  waters  receded 
from  the  earth  in  the  time  of  Noah,  Almighty  God  made  a  solemn 
covenant  with  the  patriarch  and  his  posterity  that  from  that 
time  forth  never  again  would  this  earth  of  ours  be  deluged  by 
water,  and  as  a  sign,  as  a  symbol,  as  an  evidence  of  this  covenant 
which  He  made.  He  caused  an  arch  to  appear  in  the  Heavens, 
a  rainbow  to  appear  in  the  Heavens.  Let  Britannia  and  Colum- 
bia join  hands  across  the  Atlantic,  and  their  outstretched  arms 
will  form  a  sacred  arc,  a  sacred  rainbow,  a  sacred  arch  of  peace, 
that  will  cause  and  excite  the  admiration  of  the  world  and  will 
proclaim  to  mankind  that  with  God's  help  never  more  again 
shall  this  earth  of  ours  be  deluged  with  bloodshed,  fraticide  or 
war,  I  am  sure  that  the  time  is  most  auspicious  for  the  consum- 
mation of  this  great  event,  this  great  alliance.  It  sees  us  start 
with  the  help  of  one  whom  we  all  honor,  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  who  brings  his  own  strong  personality  and  also 
the  influence  of  his  official  position.  I  trubt  also  that  it  will 
meet  with  the  endorsement  of  our  Congress,  and  we  all  know  that 
it  receives  the  encouragement  of  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  England.  Looking  around  me  here,  I  see 
that  we  have  many  distinguished  men  sent  upon  the  same  glo- 


4  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

rious  mission.  They  come  to  uphold  the  hands  of  the  President 
in  this  mission  just  as  the  people  of  Israel  upheld  the  arms  of 
Moses  when  he  addressed  them. 

I  pray  that  all  you  gentlemen  who  are  participating  in  this 
glorious  work  will  deserve  to  receive  that  title  bestowed  upon  the 
friends  of  peace  by  the  Prince  of  Peace,  **  Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers, for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God." 

President  Holt:  I  am  asked  by  the  Committee  on  Resolu- 
tions to  state  that  all  resolutions  must  be  presented  in  writing 
and  given  without  debate  to  the  Committee  on  Resolutions, 
which  will  report  at  the  end  of  the  meeting  on  Friday  afternoon. 

It  is  now  my  painful  duty  to  introduce  to  you  the  next  speaker. 
Though  his  name  appears  on  the  official  program  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Congress,  I  feel  bound  to  state  that  he  is  mostly  a 
figurehead.  All  the  credit  of  making  this  Peace  Congress  the 
great  success  it  is,  belongs  to  Mr.  Theodore  Marburg  of  Balti- 
more, and  his  most  efficient  hardworking  and  public-spirited 
fellow  citizens.  You  will  now  have  the  doubtful  pleasure  of 
listening  to  Mr.  Hamilton  Holt  of  New  York,  who  will  read  a 
paper  entitled: 

A  LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 

The  first  National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States  was 
held  in  New  York  City  from  the  14th  to  the  17th  of  April,  1907 — 
just  two  months  before  the  convening  of  the  Second  Hague 
Conference.  In  the  personnel  of  its  officers,  speakers  and  dele- 
gates, it  was  the  most  distinguished  unofficial  gathering  ever 
held  in  the  United  States. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  main  attention  of  the  Congress  was 
focused  on  the  coming  Hague  Conference.  Nearly  all  the  speak- 
ers discussed  it,  and  the  two  most  important  resolutions  passed 
were  those  favoring  the  negotiation  of  a  general  treaty  of  arbi- 
tration and  the  turning  of  The  Hague  Conference  into  a  perma- 
nent international  body. 

The  Hague  Conference,  thanks  in  large  measure  to  the  leader- 
ship of  the  United  States  delegation,  took  a  long  step  towards 


HOLT  5 

making  these  two  propositions  realities.  The  principle  of  obli- 
gatory arbitration  was  unanimously  adopted  by  all  the  nations, 
and  had  not  Germany  and  Austria  and  a  few  of  the  smaller  Euro- 
pean states  objected  so  bitterly,  a  general  treaty  in  accordance 
with  that  principle  would  have  been  drafted  and  approved. 

The  nations  also  took  the  first  steps  towards  turning  The 
Hague  Conferences  into  an  automatic  and  periodic  World  Con- 
gress, by  taking  the  Third  Conference  out  of  the  hands  of  Russia 
and  putting  it  in  charge  of  an  international  preliminary  com- 
mittee which  was  to  meet  about  191 3  and  determine  its  method 
of  organization  and  progress. 

When  the  Second  National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States 
was  convened  in  Chicago  exactly  two  years  ago  this  very  day 
and  hour,  the  Second  Hague  Conference  had  already  passed  into 
history  and  the  world  was  just  beginning  to  realize  what  a  great 
work  it  had  accomplished  for  international  justice  and  peace. 
As  Elihu  Root  has  so  truly  said,  that  Conference  "presents  the 
greatest  advance  ever  made  at  a  single  time  towards  the  reason- 
able and  peaceful  regulation  of  international  conduct,  unless 
it  be  the  advance  made  at  The  Hague  Conference  of  1899." 

The  Chicago  Congress  was  not  content,  however,  with  passing 
congratulatory  resolutions  on  things  already  accomplished. 
Like  the  New  York  Congress  it  set  its  face  towards  the  future  and 
spoke  out  brave  and  strong.  Not  only  did  it  declare  that  war 
was  "out  of  date"  in  this  age  of  Hague  Conferences,  courts  and 
arbitration  treaties,  but  it  demanded  as  the  most  pressing  "next 
steps"  in  the  peace  movement  the  creation  of  a  peace  commission 
by  our  government  to  study  the  whole  peace  question,  a  general 
treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
League  of  Peace,  to  make  the  recurrence  of  war  impossible.  Two 
years  have  now  elapsed  since  these  three  recommendations  were 
uttered.     Has  any  progress  been  made  towards  their  realization? 

Last  June  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  passed  unanimously 
the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  etc.,  'That  a  commission  of  five  members  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  consider  the 
expediency  of  utilizing  existing  international   agencies   for   the 


6.  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

purpose  of  limiting  the  armaments  of  the  nations  of  the  world 
by  international  agreement  and  of  constituting  the  combined 
navies  of  the  world  an  international  force  for  the  preservation  of 
universal  peace,  and  to  consider  and  report  upon  any  other 
means  to  diminish  the  expenditures  of  government  for  military 
purposes  and  to  lessen  the  probabilities  of  war.'  " 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  dated  December  i6,  1910, 
President  Taft  stated: 

"I  have  not  as  yet  made  appointments  to  the  commission  be- 
cause I  have  invited  and  am  awaiting  the  expressions  of  foreign 
governments  as  to  their  willingness  to  co-operate  with  us  in  the 
appointment  of  similar  commissions  or  representatives  who  would 
meet  with  our  commissions  and  by  joint  action  seek  to  make 
their  work  effective." 

It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  this  epoch-making  document 
and  the  action  of  the  President  upon  it.  When  the  President 
appoints  the  members  of  the  Commission  for  the  first  time  in  the 
annals  of  history  a  great  nation  in  time  of  peace  will  prepare  for 
peace. 

It  is  in  the  realm  of  arbitration,  however,  that  the  greatest 
cause  for  rejoicing  exists.  The  world,  to  be  sure,  has  not  yet 
obtained  the  desired  general  treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration. 
It  has  got,  however,  what  is  of  vastly  more  importance.  Presi- 
dent Taft's  statement  that  he  is  willing  to  settle  all  disputes,  even 
those  involving  national  honor,  by  arbitration,  is  the  most  momen- 
tous declaration  ever  made  by  a  man  in  his  position  in  favor  of 
peace.  The  proposed  arbitration  treaty  of  unlimited  scope  with 
Great  Britain  is  the  practical  application  of  this  declaration. 
Already  it  has  transfigured  the  whole  peace  movement  and  has 
rendered  the  code  of  war  obnoxious  if  not  obsolete.  And  this  is 
the  situation  that  confronts  the  world  as  we  assemble  here  today 
at  the  opening  of  the  Third  National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  our  duty  to  look  ahead  through  the  vista  opened  up 
by  President  Taft's  high  statesmanship  and  to  take  as  resolute 
and  progressive  a  stand  here  as  the  New  York  and  the  Chicago 
Congresses  did  four  and  two  years  ago. 

There   are   many  pressing  problems   before   us  waiting  to  be 


HOLT  7 

solved.  The  judicial  arbitration  court  created  by  the  Second 
Hague  Conference,  all  but  the  detail  of  the  method  of  the  selec- 
tion of  the  judges,  is  yet  to  be  constituted.  No  attention  has 
yet  been  paid  to  the  requests  of  both  the  First  and  the  Second 
Hague  Conferences  that  the  governments  give  themselves  over  to 
the  serious  study  of  the  limitation  of  armaments.  It  is  not  yet 
provided  that  the  future  Hague  Conferences  become  automatic, 
periodic  and  self-governing  bodies,  as  our  delegation  suggested 
at  the  Conference  of  1907.  The  Peace  Commission  is  not  yet 
appointed.  We  should  consider  all  these  and  many  other  ques- 
tions where  our  voice  may  be  of  help  to  governments,  and  peace 
societies  both  here  and  abroad.  But  the  one  all-important 
issue  before  us  is  the  pending  arbitration  treaty  with  Great 
Britain;  for  this  treaty  is  destined  to  make  war  hereafter  impossible 
between  the  English  speaking  people  of  the  earth. 

The  peace  movement,  we  have  now  come  to  realize,  is  nothing 
but  the  process  of  substituting  law  for  war.  The  world  has 
already  learned  to  substitute  law  for  war  in  hamlets,  towns,  cities, 
states  and  even  within  the  forty-six  sovereign  civilized  nations. 
But  in  that  international  realm  over  and  above  each  nation  in 
which  each  nation  is  equally  sovereign,  the  only  way  at  the  present 
moment  for  a  nation  to  secure  its  rights  is  by  the  use  of  force. 
Force,  therefore,  or  war  as  it  is  called  when  exerted  by  a  nation 
against  another  nation — is  at  present  the  only  legal  and  final 
method  of  settling  international  dijfferences.  The  world  is  now 
using  a  Christian  code  of  ethics  for  individuals,  and  a  pagan 
code  for  nations,  though  there  is  no  double  standard  of  ethics 
in  the  moral  world.  In  other  words,  the  nations  are  in  that  state 
of  civilization  where  without  a  qualm  they  claim  the  right  to 
settle  their  disputes  in  a  manner  which  they  would  actually  put 
their  own  subjects  to  death  for  imitating.  Thus  the  peace  prob- 
lem is  nothing  but  the  ways  and  means  of  doing  between  the 
nations  what  has  already  been  done  within  the  nations.  Inter- 
national law  follows  private  law.  The  **  United  Nations"  follow 
the  United  States. 

At  present  international  law  has  reached  the  same  state  of 
development  that  private  or  municipal  law  had  attained  in  the 


8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tenth  century.  Furthermore  a  careful  study  of  the  formation 
of  the  thirteen  American  Colonies  from  separate  states  into  our 
present  compact  union  discloses  the  fact  that  the  nations  today 
are  in  the  same  stage  of  development  that  the  American  Colonies 
were  at  about  the  time  of  their  first  confederation.  As  the 
United  States  came  into  existence  by  the  establishment  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  and  the  Continental  Congress,  so  the 
"United  Nations"  at  this  very  moment  exist  by  the  fact  of  The 
Hague  Court  and  the  recurring  Hague  Conferences,  The  Hague 
Court  being  the  promise  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  World  and 
The  Hague  Conferences  being  the  prophecy  of  the  Parliament 
of  Man.  We  may  look  with  confidence  therefore  to  a  future  in 
which  the  world  will  have  an  established  court  with  jurisdiction 
over  all  questions,  self-governing  conferences  with  power  to  legis- 
late on  all  affairs  of  common  concern,  and  an  executive  power  of 
some  form  to  carry  out  the  decrees  of  both.  To  deny  this  is  to 
ignore  all  the  analogies  of  private  law  and  the  whole  trend  of  the 
world's  political  history  since  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
As  Secretary  Knox  has  said  in  his  great  address  delivered  last 
June  at  the  commencement  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania: 

"We  have  reached  a  point  when  it  is  evident  that  the  future 
holds  in  store  a  time  when  war  shall  cease;  when  the  nations  of 
the  world  shall  realize  a  federation  as  real  and  vital  as  that  now 
subsisting  between  the  component  parts  of  a  single  State." 

I  recall  no  more  far-visioned  statement  than  this  ever  emanat- 
ing from  the  chancellery  of  a  great  State.  It  means  nothing  less 
than  that  the  age-long  dreams  of  the  poets,  the  prophets  and  the 
philosophers  have  at  last  entered  the  realms  of  practical  states- 
manship, and  the  world  is  on  the  threshold  of  the  dawn  of  uni- 
versal peace. 

The  political  organization  of  the  world,  therefore,  is  the  task 
of  the  twentieth  century.  But  the  formation  of  a  world  govern- 
ment must  be  a  very  slow  process.  Such  a  federal  government 
when  complete  would  be  as  the  historian  Freeman  has  said,  "The 
most  finished  and  the  most  artificial  production  of  political 
ingenuity."  To  accomplish  it  is  surely  not  the  work  of  a  day 
or  a  year. 


HOLT  9 

How  then  can  this  movement  be  hastened?  There  are  only- 
two  ways.  First  by  the  education  of  the  public  opinion  of  the 
world  so  as  to  compel  the  governments  to  move  at  successive 
Hague  Conferences  or  at  special  international  conferences,  and, 
second,  by  a  few  of  the  more  enlightened  nations  organizing  them- 
selves together  for  peace  in  advance  of  the  others.  This  latter 
method  is  already  being  adopted  extensively.  The  Judicial 
Arbitration  Court  will  be  constituted  by  only  a  few  of  the  nations 
at  first.  England  and  the  United  States  will  not  wait  for  a  gen- 
eral treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration  before  establishing  a  model 
one  between  themselves.  Chile  and  Argentina  did  not  delay 
for  concurrent  action  on  the  part  of  the  whole  world  before  they 
commenced  to  disarm,  as  the  statue  of  the  Christ  on  the  summit 
of  the  Andes  so  eloquently  attests.  Why,  then,  should  not  a 
few  nations  here  and  now  form  among  themselves  a  League  of 
Peace  to  hasten  the  ultimate  world  federation? 

The  idea  of  a  League  of  Peace  is  not  novel.  All  federal  govern- 
ments and  confederations  of  governments,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  are  essentially  Leagues  of  Peace,  even  though  they  may 
have  functions  to  perform  which  often  lead  directly  to  war. 

The  ancient  Achaian  League  of  Greece,  the  Confederation  of 
Swiss  Cantons,  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands  and  the 
United  States  of  America  are  the  most  perfect  systems  of  feder- 
ated governments  known  to  history.  Less  perfect,  but  none  the 
less  interesting  to  students  of  government,  are  the  Latium  League 
of  thirty  cities,  the  Hanseatic  League,  and  in  modern  times  the 
German  Confederation.  Even  the  Dual  and  Triple  Alliances 
and  the  Concert  of  Europe  might  be  called  more  or  less  inchoate 
Leagues  of  Peace. 

Any  League  of  Peace,  however,  likely  to  be  established  in  th^ 
immediate  future  and  designed  to  be  of  real  and  lasting  benefit  to 
humanity  must  differ  from  all  previous  and  present  leagues, 
alliances  and  confederations  in  total  abstinence  from  the  use  of 
force.  The  ancient  leagues  as  well  as  the  modern  confederations 
have  generally  been  unions  of  offense  and  defense.  They  stood 
ready,  if  they  did  not  actually  propose,  to  use  their  common 


lO  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

forces   to  compel  outside  states  to   obey  their  will.     Thus  they 
were  as  frequently  Leagues  of  Oppression  as  Leagues  of  Peace. 

The  problem  of  the  League  of  Peace  is  therefore  the  problem  of 
the  use  of  force.  Shall  the  members  of  the  League  "not  only 
keep  the  peace  themselves  but  prevent  by  force,  if  necessary,  its 
being  broken  by  others,"  outside  of  the  League,  as  ex-President 
Roosevelt  has  suggested?  Or  shall  it  exercise  its  force  only  with- 
in its  membership  and  so  be  on  the  side  of  law  and  order  and  never 
on  the  side  of  arbitrary  will  or  tyranny?  Or  rather  shall  it  never 
use  force  at  all?  Whichever  of  these  three  possibilities  is  ulti- 
mately adopted,  I  think  that  at  first  it  would  be  unwise  for  a 
League  of  Peace  to  attempt  to  use  force  for  any  purpose  whatso- 
ever.CBesides,  the  use  of  force  will  probably  be  found  unnecessary. 
When  nations  arrive  at  that  state  of  civilization  where  they  are 
ready  to  settle  their  differences  by  arbitration  rather  than  by 
war,  they  are  ready  peaceably  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  arbi- 
tral tribunals.  The  history  of  arbitration  clearly  demonstrates 
this.  ^  With  but  one  or  two  insignificant  exceptions,  the  nations 
have  lived  up  to  all  arbitral  awards,  both  in  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  the  judgment  and  there  have  been  hundreds  of  such 
awards.  We  need  a  policeman  to  use  force  on  criminals.  But 
happily  there  is  no  such  thing  nowadays  as  a  criminal  nation.  7 

Moreover  to  project  a  League  of  Peace  at  the  present  moment^ 
with  a  specially  constituted  international  force  at  its  disposal 
would  instantly  beget  suspicion,  if  not  alarm,  on  the  part  of  all 
nations  not  invited  to  join.  They  would  consider  it  an  alliance 
against  themselves  and  would  very  likely  proceed  forthwith  to 
start  a  counter  alliance  to  preserve  the  balance  of  power. 

With  the  idea  in  view  then,  that  the  League  of  Peace  shall  not 
have  any  specially  constituted  common  army  and  navy  at  its 
disposal,  I  offer  herewith,  for  whatever  it  may  be  worth,  the  fol- 
lowing constitution  for  a  proposed  League  of  Peace  in  the  hope 
that  it  may  possibly  serve  as  a  basis  for  further  study. 

1.  The  nations  in  the  League  shall  refer  all  disputes  of  what- 
soever a  nature  to  arbitration. 

2.  The  Hague  Court  or  other  duly  constituted  courts  shall 
decide  all  disputes  that  cannot  be  settled  by  diplomacy. 


HOLT  I I 

3.  The  League  shall  provide  a  periodical  convention  or  assembly 
to  make  all  rules  for  the  League,  such  rules  to  become  law  unless 
vetoed  by  a  nation  within  a  stated  period. 

4.  Each  member  of  the  League  shall  have  the  right  to  arm 
itself  according  to  its  own  judgment. 

5.  Any  member  of  the  League  shall  have  the  right  to  withdraw 
on  due  notice. 

The  advantages  that  a  nation  would  gain  in  becoming  a  mem- 
ber of  such  a  League  are  manifest.  The  risk  of  war  would  be 
eliminated  between  the  members  of  the  League,  and  a  method 
would  be  devised  whereby  they  could  develop  their  common 
intercourse  and  interests  as  far  or  as  fast  as  they  could  unani- 
mously agree  on  ways  and  means.  It  is  conceivable  that  such  a 
league  might  in  time  reduce  tariffs  and  postal  rates  and  in  a  thou- 
sand other  ways  promote  commerce  and  comity  among  its  mem- 
bers. Indeed  the  possibilities  of  such  a  League  are  almost  infinite, 
even  though  it  attempts  to  employ  no  force  at  all  to  compel 
obedience  to  its  will. 

Assuming,  then,  the  desirability  of  such  a  League  of  Peace, 
how  is  it  to  be  brought  about? 

Surely  the  first  step  is  to  conclude  the  arbitration  treaty  now 
being  negotiated  with  Great  Britain.  Once  this  treaty  is  upon 
the  international  statute  books,  and  as  surely  as  daylight  follows 
dawn,  it  will  be  followed  by  similar  treaties  with  other  nations. 
Japan  and  France  are  said  to  be  ready — even  anxious — to  nego- 
tiate similar  treaties  with  us.  Indeed  it  is  by  no  means  impos- 
sible that  there  will  be  a  race  between  England  and  Japan  on  the 
one  hand  and  France  and  the  United  States  on  the  other  to  see 
which  can  conclude  the  second  model  arbitration  treaty  of  the 
world. 

Thus  the  time  is  likely  soon  to  come  when  several  of  the  nations 
having  bound  themselves  each  to  each  by  eternal  chains  of  peace 
win  be  ready  to  take  the  next  logical  step  and  negotiate  a  general 
treaty  of  arbitration  among  themselves.  This,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  would  constitute  a  League  of  Peace.  And  it  would 
inevitably  grow  in  power  and  prestige  until  all  the  nations  of  the 
world  entered  its  concordant  and  prosperous  circle. 


12  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Indeed  it  might  be  a  stroke  of  statesmanship  if  an  article  were 
added  to  the  proposed  arbitration  treaty  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  inviting  other  nations  to  adhere  to  it. 
This  would  save  much  time  and  effort,  and  obviate  the  necessity 
for  each  of  the  forty-six  nations  to  negotiate  a  special  treaty  with 
every  other.  Thus  only  one  treaty  would  have  to  be  negotiated 
instead  of  1034.  But  whether  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  ask  other  nations  to  adhere  to  their  model  treaty  or  not, 
the  principle  of  unlimited  arbitration  will  grow — first  by  a  few 
nations  adopting  it,  then  by  more,  until  finally  the  whole  world 
will  agree  to  enthrone  reason  rather  than  might  as  the  great  arbi- 
ter of  their  destinies,  and  war  shall  reign  no  more.  First,  an  un- 
limited arbitration  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  Second,  a  League  of  Peace.  Third,  the  Federation  of 
the  Wodd. 

Is  all  this  a  dream?  I  have  already  quoted  the  weighty  words 
of  Secretary  Knox  prophesying  the  coming  of  a  world  federation. 
Let  me  close  with  the  equally  prophetic  utterance  of  an  equally 
responsible  and  distinguished  statesman.  On  the  17th  of  March, 
at  the  dinner  of  the  International  Arbitration  League,  the  Right 
Honorable  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  British  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs  said: 

"If  an  arbitration  treaty  is  made  between  the  two  great  coun- 
tries on  the  lines  sketched  out  by  the  President  of  the  United 
•States.  .  .  .  don't  let  them  set  narrow  bounds  to  their 
hopes  of  the  beneficent  results  which  may  develop  from  it  in 
the  course  of  time — results  which  I  think  must  extend  far  beyond 
the  two  countries  originally  concerned.  The  effect  on  the  world 
at  large  of  the  example  would  be  bound  to  have  beneficent  con- 
sequences. To  set  a  good  example  is  to  hope  that  others  of  the 
great  powers  will  follow  it,  and  if  they  did  follow  there  would 
eventually  be  something  like  a  League  of  Peace." 

The  President  of  the  United  States  was  introduced  by  the  pre- 
siding oflScer,  Mr.  Holt,  as  follows: 


HOLT  13 

The  President  of  the  United  States  occupies  the  greatest 
national  oflBice  in  the  world. 

Not  only  does  he  preside  over  a  confederation  of  forty-six 
sovereign  States — the  greatest  peace  society  known  to  history, 
and  a  living  example  to  the  forty-six  civilized  nations  of  the  world 
of  the  way  to  obtain  peace  through  political  organization — but 
he  holds  his  exalted  office  by  the  deliberate  choice  and  sanction 
of  ninety  million  free  and  enlightened  people. 

The  only  way  for  a  man  to  rise  above  the  level  of  the  presi- 
dency of  the  United  States  is  to  ascend  into  the  international 
realm. 

By  far  the  greatest  and  noblest  thing  to  be  done  in  the  inter- 
national realm  is  to  organize  the  world  for  peace.  Peace  is  the 
outcome  of  justice,  justice  of  law,  law  of  political  organization. 
Emanuel  Kant,  one  of  the  greatest  intellects  the  world  has  ever 
produced,  proclaimed  this  as  the  true  philosophy  of  peace,  when 
in  1795,  he  said,  "We  never  can  have  universal  peace  until  the 
World  is  politically  organized,"  and  it  will  never  be  possible  to 
organize  the  world  politically  until  all  the  nations  have  a  repre- 
sentative form  of  government. 

This  afternoon  we  have  with  us  not  only  the  man  who  is  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  but  also  the  man  who  has  taken  the 
highest  stand  ever  taken  by  the  head  of  a  great  nation  in  favor  of 
law  instead  of  war  as  a  method  of  settling  international  differ- 
ences. If  peace  hath  her  victories  no  less  renowned  than  war, 
its  greatest  victory  during  the  present  century  if  not  during  the 
entire  human  era  is  the  declaration  of  President  Taft  that  he  is 
willing  to  refer  all  questions,  even  those  involving  national  honor, 
to  arbitration. 

This  declaration  exalted  him  at  once  and  forever  to  the  position 
of  leader  in  the  peace  movement  of  the  world,  and  offers  to  the 
nations  a  guiding  principle  that  they  will  support  with  ever- 
increasing  favor  and  fervor  until  it  is  made  a  universal  law. 

And  so  when  this  unlimited  arbitration  treaty  now  being  nego- 
tiated between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  is  ratified 
by  the  Senate — it  is  already  ratified  by  the  people  of  England  and 
America — and  is  followed  by  similar  treaties  with  all  the  remaining 


14  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

nations,  great  and  small,  President  Taft  will  have  done  more 
than  any  man  in  all  history  to  hasten  that  day  sure  to  come, 
when  as  Victor  Hugo  prophesied  in  1849,  ''the  only  battlefield 
will  be  the  market  opening  to  commerce,  and  the  mind  to  new 
ideas." 

The  Third  American  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States  will 
now  have  the  unprecedented  honor  of  being  opened  and  addressed 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

ADDRESS  BY  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

It  expresses  my  feelings  when  I  say  that  I  am  frightened  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Chairman.  I  have  been  told  before  that  I 
exercise  in  the  presidential  office  greater  power  than  any  man  on  earth. 
I  have  been  able  to  take  that  idea  in,  and  I  know  how  much  of  it 
is  real  fact  and  how  much  of  it  is  eloquence  turning  a  good  period. 

It  is  possible  that  the  President  does  exercise  greater  power 
than  that  of  any  other  ruler  in  the  world,  but  I  am  able  to  give 
you  a  little  information  from  the  standpoint  of  one  with  some 
opportunity  to  observe,  and  I  am  bound  to  say  that  the  burden 
and  responsibility  of  the  position  are  brought  home  to  him  much 
more  clearly  than  the  power. 

Your  Chairman  has  been  good  enough  to  refer  to  something 
that  I  had  said  with  reference  to  a  hope  for  general  arbitration, 
and  the  expression  of  opinion  that  an  arbitration  treaty  of  the 
widest  scope  between  two  great  nations,  would  be  a  very  impor- 
tant step  in  securing  the  peace  of  the  world.  I  do  not  claim  any 
patent  on  that  statement,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  is  shared 
by  all  who  understand  the  situation  at  all.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
an  important  step — if  such  an  arbitration  treaty  can  be  concluded 
— will  have  been  taken,  but  it  will  not  bring  an  end  of  war  at 
once.  It  is  a  step,  and  we  must  not  defeat  our  purposes  by  enlarg- 
ing the  expectation  of  the  people  of  the  world  as  to  what  is  to  hap- 
pen and  then  disappointing  them.  In  other  words,  we  must  look 
forward  with  reasonable  judgment,  and  look  to  such  an  arbitration 
treaty  as  one  step  to  be  followed  by  other  steps  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible; but  we  must  realize  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  world  that  is 
fallible  and  full  of  weakness — with  so'me  wickedness  in  it — and 


TAFT  15 

that  reforms  that  are  worth  having  are  brought  about  little  by 
little  and  not  by  one  blow.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  this  that  I 
am  not  greatly  interested  in  bringing  about  the  arbitration  treaty 
or  treaties  that  are  mentioned,  but  I  do  think  that  we  are  likely 
to  make  more  progress  if  we  look  forward  with  reasonable  fore- 
sight and  realize  the  difficulties  that  are  to  be  overcome,  than  if 
we  think  we  have  opened  the  gate  to  eternal  peace  with  one  key 
and  within  one  year. 

I  am  not  going  to  dwell  upon  the  question  of  the  arbitration 
treaty  which  is  in  the  process  of  negotiation.  The  truth  is  I 
would  much  rather  stand  upon  the  platform  and  refer  to  such  a 
step  as  taken,  to  such  a  treaty  as  made  and  acquiesced  in,  than  to 
discuss  it  during  its  negotiation  when  I  am  part  or  one  of  the  nego- 
tiators. Therefore,  I  would  wish  to  make  the  few  remarks  which 
I  will  address  to  you  this  afternoon  upon  one  or  two  other  sub- 
jects than  that  of  the  general  arbitration  treaty. 

Since  the  matter  of  the  arbitration  treaty  has  been  suggested, 
I  have  received  a  great  many  invitations  from  various  associa- 
tions whose  titles  indicated  that  their  purpose  was  the  promotion 
of  peace,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that  in  the  number  of  those  associa- 
tions and  in  their  lack  of  cooperation  we  might  find  some  oppor- 
tunity for  an  improvement  in  the  movement  and  for  giving  greater 
force  to  organized  expression  for  peace.  You  have  a  Congress 
here,  and  in  this  Congress  I  assume  that  a  good  many  associations 
take  part.  Have  you  any  basis  of  organization  and  union  which 
unites  your  efforts  in  anything  but  this  Congress?  Don't  you 
think  you  had  better  unite  your  peace  associations  and  make 
your  efforts  united  toward  the  one  object  you  have  in  view? 
Aren't  you  likely  to  squander  a  little  of  your  force  if  you  main- 
tain isolated  associations  and  do  not  come  together  for  the  pur- 
pose we  all  have  in  view? 

The  second  thought  that  I  would  like  to  bring  to  you  is  that 
one  of  the  evidences  of  an  improvement  in  the  world  for  peace  is 
the  fact  that  all  the  state  departments,  all  chancellories  of  foreign 
affairs  are  themselves  now  organized  into  agencies  for  the  pro- 
motion of  peace  by  negotiation.  The  State  Department  at 
Washington  has  no  more  important  or  absorbing  duty  than  to 


1 6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

lend  its  good  offices  to  the  republics — the  twenty  republics  of 
this  hemisphere — to  prevent  their  various  differences  from  lead- 
ing into  war.  And,  not  to  go  back  of  this  administration,  there 
have  been  four  instances  in  which  the  action  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment, taken  in  connection  with  some  of  the  influential  countries 
of  South  America,  has  absolutely  prevented  wars  which  twenty 
or  thirty  years  ago  would  certainly  have  ensued.  The  difficulties 
with  respect  to  war  are  not  now  so  large,  although,  of  course,  the 
danger  from  them  is  not  absent — but  not  now  so  large  with  stable 
and  powerful  governments,  maintaining  law  and  order  with  some- 
thing like  perfection,  but  it  is  in  those  governments  which  do  not 
exercise  complete  control  over  their  people  and  in  which  revolu- 
tions and  insurrections  break  out,  not  only  to  the  injury  and 
danger  of  the  people  and  their  property  as  well  as  of  the  government 
itself,  but  to  the  disturbance  of  all  the  world  in  their  neighborhood. 
It  is  with  reference  to  disturbances  of  this  kind  that  the  United 
States  and  the  other  great  republics  of  this  hemisphere  must 
exercise  their  kindly  and  peaceful  influence  as  much  as  possible. 
One  of  the  difiiculties  that  the  United  States  finds  is  the  natural 
suspicion  that  the  countries  engaged  have  of  the  motive  which  the 
United  States  has  in  tendering  its  good  ofiices.  Now,,_a_s.S£i:L_ 
vation,  I  presume,  helps  but  little  where  the  suspicion  is  real, 
~an9'3^t  I  like  to  avail  myself  of  an  opportunity  in  such  a  presence 
as  this  to  assert  that  there  is  not,  in  the  whole  length  and  breadth 
of  the  United  States,  among  its  peoples,  any  desire,  for  territorial 
aggrandizement,  and  that  its  people  as  a  whole  will  not  permit 
this  government,  if  it  would,  to  take  any  steps  in  respect  to  for- 
eign governments  except  those  which  will  aid  those  foreign 
governments  and  those  foreign  people  in  maintaining  their  own 
government  and  in  maintaining  peace  within  their  borders. 
We  have  had  wars,  and  we  know  what  they  are.  We  know  the 
responsibilities  they  entail,  the  burdens  and  losses  and  horrors — 
and  we  would  have  none  of  them.  We  have  a  magnificent  do- 
main of  our  own  in  which  we  are  attempting  to  work  out  and  show 
to  the  world  success  in  popular  government,  and  we  need  no 
more  territory  in  which  to  show  that. 

p.  i6,  line  21,  read  asseveration  in  place  of  asservation 


HOLT  17 

But  we  have  attained  great  prosperity  and  great  power.  We 
have  become  a  powerful  member  of  the  community  of  nations 
in  which  we  live,  and  there  is,  therefore,  thrown  upon  us  neces- 
sarily a  care  and  responsibility  for  the  peace  of  the  world  in  our 
neighborhood,  and  a  burden  of  helping  those  nations  that  cannot 
help  themselves,  if  we  may  do  that  peacefully  and  effectively. 

Now,  we  have  undertaken  such  a  duty  in  respect  to  Santo 
Domingo.  She  was  torn  with  contending  factions.  Foreign 
nations  held  her  bonds  and  desired  to  collect  what  was  due.  We 
entered  into  an  arrangement  by  which  we  put  in  our  revenue 
officers  to  collect  the  revenue.  We  took  charge  of  the  custom 
houses,  and  that  agency  gave  us  an  instrumentality  by  which 
we  have  enabled  that  nation  to  go  on,  until  she  is  rapidly  paying 
ofif  her  debts,  and  while  we  have  been  there  has  had  no  factions 
or  revolutions. 

I  may  add  that  our  position  with  respect  to  Santo  Domingo 
enabled  us  to  intervene  when  she  and  Haiti  thought  it  was  neces- 
sary to  fight  about  something,  and  to  persuade  those  two  nations 
to  submit  their  difference  to  The  Hague. 

I  do  not  think  we  can  avoid  the  discharge  of  a  duty  like  that, 
it  helps  the  world,  it  helps  the  country  which  we  help,  and  it 
helps  ourselves  by  showing  that  a  nation  ought  to  have  a  con- 
science and  ought  to  have  a  neighborly  feeling  as  well  as  an  indi- 
vidual one. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  am  not  going  on  with  these  desultory  remarks. 
I  am  glad  that  I  could  come  here  to  this  Congress  of  Peace,  and 
any  personality  that  I  may  have  of  a  representative  character  I 
wish  to  lend  to  your  Congress,  and  lend  to  it  the  support  of  the 
United  States. 

In  introducing  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  as  the  next  speaker  Mr. 
Holt  said: 

This  Congress  has  the  great  honor  of  having  on  its  platform 
this  afternoon  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie,  President  of  the  First 
National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  Honorable 
J.  M.  Dickinson,  Secretary  of  War,  President  of  the  Second 
National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States. 


l8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

As  to  Mr.  Carnegie,  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  no  man  in  the 
whole  world  during  the  past  generation  has  stood  more  conspicu- 
ously and  worked  more  zealously,  constantly,  and  untiringly  for 
international  peace  than  he. 

You  have  all  heard  of  the  sinews  of  war.  When  we  think 
of  him  we  cannot  help  thinking  of  the  sinews  of  Peace. 

The  year  19 lo  will  forever  be  memorable  in  the  annals  of  the 
American  Peace  movement.  In  that  year  President  Taft  made 
his  epochal  declaration  in  favor  of  unlimited  arbitration,  Congress 
created  the  United  States  Peace  Commission,  Mr.  Edwin  Ginn 
was  the  first  citizen  of  the  world  to  give  $100,000  to  Peace,  and 
then  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  electrified  all  Christendom  with  his 
princely  $10,000,000  endowment,  for  a  peace  foundation. 

Mr.  Carnegie's  gift  is  the  noblest  and  crowning  benefaction 
of  his  life.  As  long  as  capital  draws  interest,  this  endowment 
will  yield  its  half  million  a  year,  and  when  wars  cease  as  they  inevit- 
ably will,  when  nations  learn  the  better  way,  it  will  be  used  to 
abolish  the  next  greatest  scourge  of  mankind. 

Let  us  congratulate  ourselves  that  this  great  gift  has  been  given 
by  an  American  to  Americans  for  the  world. 

I  now  have  the  honor  of  introducing  to  you  the  donor  of  the 
first  Dreadnought  in  the  Navy  of  Peace — Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie. 

THE  PEOPLE  WHO  LIVED  IN  DARKNESS  HAVE  SEEN 
A  GREAT  LIGHT 

ANDREW   CARNEGIE 

Gentlemen:  I  rise  with  diffidence  to  address  the  members  of 
our  various  peace  societies  here  assembled  in  the  presence  of  the 
great  peace-compelling  ruler — the  bearer  of  the  message  from  on 
high,  who,  through  his  trumpet  with  one  blast,  has  blown  down 
the  stronghold  of  international  war,  which  lay  in  the  fallacy  that 
nations  could  not  submit  to  arbitration  questions  affecting  their 
honor  or  vital  interests  without  losing  their  sovereignty,  which 
only  meant,  however,  their  fancied  dignity,  the  truth  being  that 
the  nation  which  could  not  submit  any  and  every  question  was 


CARNEGIE  19 

already  bereft  of  sovereignty,  which  means  power  to  do  what  it 
pleases.  When  a  nation  agrees  to  settle  all  disputes,  she  possesses 
her  sovereignty. 

There  had  been  slight  glimpses  of  a  coming  dawn  for  some 
years.  A  few  small  stars  twinkled  at  intervals  in  the  sky  for  a 
moment  and  all  again  was  darkness,  denser  than  before.  No 
steady  flame  was  visible  until  the  brilliant  sun  burst  forth  pro- 
claiming its  sovereignty  over  all  things,  and  revealing  to  our 
leader  the  true  path.  Then,  but  not  till  then,  the  people  that 
had  walked  in  darkness  saw  a  great  Hght. 

To  President  Taft's  appeal  to  the  world,  in  which  both  his 
heart  and  head  went  forth  for  one  great  nation  to  join  his  country 
in  proving  their  sovereignty  by  agreeing  to  submit  all  disputes 
to  peaceful  settlement,  behold  there  came  such  responce  across 
the  sea  from  the  other  branch  of  our  English-speaking  race,  as 
had  never  been  made  to  any  appeal  before.  The  leaders  of  parties 
in  Britain  sunk  the  partizan  in  the  patriot,  touched  by  the  Presi- 
dent's appeal.  The  nation  was  unanimous;  all  parties  fused  into 
one.  Today  the  representatives  of  the  two  lands  are  formulating 
the  treaty,  and  here  Britain  knows  nothing  of  party,  for  all 
parties  cooperate,  a  sublime  spectacle,  proving  that  party  issues 
fade  in  the  presence  of  the  high  moral  issue  which  leads  nations 
to  peace.  What  of  our  own  statesmen,  leaders  of  party?  Are 
they  to  emulate  their  compeers  of  Britain?  My  prediction  is  that 
they  will,  and  that  our  republic  will  prove  to  the  world  that 
politics  with  us  are  only  skin  deep,  and  that  our  statesmen  rise 
above  party  when  a  great  moral  world-wide  victory  is  within  our 
grasp.     I  am  not  without  some  basis  for  the  faith  that  is  in  me. 

Mr.  Chairman,  upon  the  subject  which  demands  attention  to- 
day in  our  mission  as  peace  advocates,  I  am  somewhat  disposed 
to  exclaim:  ''Farewell  the  plumed  steed,  the  ear-piercing  fife, 
the  spirit  stirring  drum,  the  royal  banner,  and  all  pomp  and  cir- 
cumstance of  glorious  war." 

"Othello's  occupation  gone,"  what  use  to  preach  to  the  converted, 
and  where  is  the  peace  orator  to  find  the  unconverted  today  in 
our  land?  Whither  has  the  mailed  champion  fled  who  insisted 
that  war  was  the  mother  of  valor  and  heroism,  ever  warning  us 


20  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

that  "When  roll  of  drum  and  battle's  roar  shall  cease  upon  the 
earth,  O!  then,  no  more  the  deed,  the  race  of  heroes  in  the  land!" 

The  heroes  who  stand  on  land  and  shoot  at  each  other  scarcely 
discernible,  miles  distant,  or  in  ships  at  sea  firing  through  space 
seven  miles  away,  for  such  has  modern  war  become — the  courage 
required  for  this  does  not  strike  one  as  obviously  very  heroic. 
The  truth  is  that  the  ranks  of  industrialism  are  revealing  daily 
in  many  lands  true  heroes  who  excel  those  of  the  war-worn  past 
as  much  as  civilization  excels  barbarism,  for  they  risk  their  own 
lives  to  save  those  of  their  fellowmen.  Thus  peaceful  civiliza- 
tion is  at  last  producing  a  race  of  genuine  heroes,  not  such  as  kill, 
but  such  as  save  their  fellowmen  at  the  risk  of  their  own  lives. 
Such  the  true,  the  only  heroes  of  our  age.  Brute  courage  man 
shares  with  the  brute.  The  moral  courage  of  today's  true  heroes 
is  alone  divine. 

In  1759  there  flashed  upon  the  mind  of  Franklin  the  idea  of  the 
federation  of  the  States.  This  was  to  be  under  the  monarchy. 
Although  this  had  the  almost  unanimous  concurrence  of  the  con- 
ference, the  measure  was  almost  unanimously  rejected  by  the 
provincial  legislatures  of  the  States.  In  this  measure  of  Frank- 
lin's we  have  the  germ  which  blossomed  into  the  unrivaled  Amer- 
ican Constitution,  which  Gladstone  pronounced  the  most  wonder- 
ful work  ever  produced  at  one  time  by  the  brain  and  purpose  of 
man. 

Franklin  guarded  and  developed  this  germ  until  it  blossomed, 
and  now  it  astonishes  the  world,  keeping  forty-seven  states,  com- 
prising the  wealthiest  nation  the  world  has  ever  seen,  in  peaceful, 
harmonious  relations  ever  growing  closer,  in  a  territory  as  large 
as  Europe,  all  citizens  under  the  reign  of  law;  no  citizen  permitted 
to  redress  his  real  or  fancied  wrongs,  but  all  compelled  to  plead 
before  a  court  of  justice.  Franklin  is  one  of  the  immortals.  Mat- 
thew Arnold  has  pronounced  his  the  weightiest  voice  that  ever 
sounded  across  the  Atlantic,  and  the  people  of  our  republic 
through  him  had  seen  a  great  light.  We  now  rest  upon  peaceful 
federation;  but  what  Franklin  did  for  his  country,  the  President 
standing  here  in  the  flesh  before  us  has  done  what  promises  to  be 
for  all  countries.     He  has  laid  the  axe  to  the  root  of  international 


MACDONALD  21 

war  and  it  will  soon  be  banished  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
as  long  as  history  endures  and  records  of  great  events  are  kept, 
so  long  must  one  name  shine  with  glorious  luster.  Gentlemen, 
in  an  inspired  moment  our  leader  saw  the  great  light.  How, 
when,  where,  we  know  not.  Probably  the  message  came  to  him 
in  a  flash  and  he  was  guided  he  knew  not  how,  but  surely  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  and  entrusted  to  him  the  divine  mis- 
sion. 

I  was  beholding  the  greatest  natural  wonder  in  the  world,  the 
Grand  Canyon,  last  spring,  when  the  New  York  papers  arrived 
and  I  read  the  President's  divine  message,  and  was  exalted.  I 
could  not  refrain  from  writing  him  a  letter  which  perhaps  surprised 
him,  but  gentlemen,  I  have  seen  the  great  light.  I  occupy  a 
strange  position;  Britain  is  my  Motherland,  the  Republic  my 
Wifeland.  I  love  them  both,  as  Mother  and  as  Wife,  and  to  see 
my  native  and  adopted  lands  hand  in  hand  leading  the  world 
to  peace  would  add  a  new  charm  to  my  life.  I  cannot  imagine 
to  what  extremes  I  might  go,  even  to  murmuring  "Now  let  thy 
servant  depart  in  peace,  for  he  has  seen  the  Glory  of  the  Lord!" 

In  introducing  the  next  speaker,  the  Presiding  Officer  referred 
to  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  that  had  been  presented  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  and  said,  "No  man  in  Canada  has  exerted 
a  greater  influence  in  favor  of  this  Reciprocity  Measure  than  the 
speaker  whom  I  now  have  the  honor  to  introduce,  Dr.  James  A. 
MacDonald,   Editor  of  the  Toronto  Globe." 

Dr.   MacDonald  then  delivered  the  following  address: 

Three  things  only  would  I  say  and  say  them  in  six  minutes. 

First,  speaking  for  Canada — half  the  continent — if  the  pro- 
posal for  unlimited  arbitration  between  the  empire  to  which  I 
belong  and  the  republic  to  which  you  belong  is  ratified  into  a 
treaty,  the  name  of  William  Howard  Taft  will  be  mentioned  in 
the  world's  future  history,  and  so  long  as  men  love  peace,  and 
when  the  day  comes  that  nations  shall  not  lift  up  swords  against 
nations,  that  name  in  the  long  line  of  American  presidents  will 
be  mentioned  with  honor. 


22  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

My  second  word  is  this:  Above  all  other  parts  of  the  world, 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  has  the  greatest  stake  in  that  proposal. 
Canada  has  most  to  gain  through  peace;  most  to  lose  through  war. 
The  sovereignty  of  Britain  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  meet  at  the  Canadian  boundary  line  and  meet  nowhere 
else.  There  would  be  the  storm  center,  the  battle  ground  and 
the  loss.  An  Anglo-American  treaty  of  arbitration  would  deter- 
mine forever  that  the  boundary  between  these  two  English  speak- 
ing nations  on  this  continent  shall  be,  not  a  danger  point,  but 
along  its  three  thousand  seven  hundred  miles,  and  for  all  time 
to  come  a  bond  of  union,  a  tryst  of  friendship,  a  pledge  of  peace. 

Canada  stands  on  the  northern  hand  of  this  American  conti- 
nent, a  free  nation  in  the  British  Empire,  the  nearest  neighbor 
and  next  of  kin  to  the  United  States,  embodying  in  herself  the 
perfect  understanding  and  mutual  confidence  by  which  for  a 
hundred  years  the  international  boundary  has  been  without  a 
fort  or  battleship,  the  wonder  of  the  nations  and  the  hope  of  the 
world. 

Canada  is  now  at  the  parting  of  the  ways:  Not  in  politics 
or  in  national  relationship;  there  our  heart  is  fixed.  The  deepest 
resolve  of  the  Canadians  is  to  stand,  as  for  half  a  century  they 
have  stood,  loyal  Britons,  free  Canadians,  surrendering  not  one 
atom  of  the  rights  of  self-government,  attracted  neither  ^by  the 
jingo  imperialism  on  one  side,  nor  by  the  dreams  of  continentalism 
on  the  other.  I  know,  sir,  there  is  no  precedent  for  such  a  national 
ideal,  but  let  us  have  a  chance,  and  by  the  blessings  of  the  God  of 
Nations,  we  will  make  a  precedent  for  nations  that  follow  after. 

And  that  is  not  all.  Canada  has  a  problem  of  her  own,  the  great 
problem  of  Canadian  democracy  to  work  out.  It  is  our  ambition, 
sir,  so  to  develop  the  life  and  resources  of  our  country  that  in  our 
nation  democracy  may  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom,  and  **  govern- 
ment of  the  people,  by  the  people  and  for  the  people,"  a  new  chance 
to  secure  for  all  citizens  not  only  "life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness,"  but  a  full  measure  of  justice  as  well. 

But,  sir,  to  do  that  we  must  have  peace.  We  cannot  afford  the 
waste  and  loss  of  war.  The  taxes  of  our  people  will  all  be  needed 
for  the  development  of  our  resources  and  for  making  Canada  the 


MACDONALD  2$ 

home,  not  for  eight  millions,  as  she  has  now,  but  for  eighty  mil- 
lions of  contented  and  prosperous  people  before  the  century  shall 
close.  Before  we  are  forced  into  war,  to  military  burdens  for 
battleships  and  armaments,  we  pause  and  make  our  appeal  to 
the  mother  country  beyond  the  sea  and  to  the  sister  republic  at 
our  side — we  make  this  appeal  for  you  to  join  hands  and  lift  this 
barbaric  obligation  out  of  our  way.  In  God's  name  why  should 
that  young  nation  be  tricked  out  in  the  false  and  faded  glory 
of  the  war  regime,  or  cursed  with  the  discredited  inheritance  of 
an  outgrown  and  repudiated  past?  The  waste  of  money  Can- 
ada might  survive,  but  not  the  waste  of  men.  In  the  quiet  of 
our  northern  homes  we  have  been  reading  history,  and  not  in 
vain.  We  have  seen  Great  Britain  robbed  of  the  best  of  her 
breed,  paying  the  awful  price  of  degeneracy  for  the  mastership 
of  the  sea.  We  have  seen  every  province  of  it,  every  shire  of  it, 
every  glen  of  it,  every  moor  of  it,  robbed  of  its  best.  Kipling 
told  us  the  ghastly  truth: 

We  have  strawed  our  best  to  the  wood's  unrest 

To  the  shark  and  the  sheering  gull; 
If  blood  be  the  price  of  admiralty, 

Lord  God,  we've  paid  in  full. 

Blood  was  the  price,  the  best  blood  of  England,  the  best  of 
Scotland,  of  Ireland  and  of  Wales.  And  that  waste  of  the  best 
has  meant  the  later  breeding  from  the  worst.  The  sad  story  of 
decay  in  every  shire,  on  every  moor,  and  in  every  glen,  is  the  re- 
sult, relentless  and  inevitable,  of  the  wanton  waste  of  the  fittest, 
in  camp  and  on  the  field  of  war. 

The  short  history  of  your  own  republic — and  we  have  had  it 
open  to  us,  and  opened  so  that  we  have  seen  it — is  charged  with 
the  same  stern  warning.  What  means  all  this  confusion  and 
crime  in  politics  and  business  and  in  the  Halls  of  Justice?  Who 
bred  these  enemies  of  your  nation?  Not  your  best,  your  million 
men  and  boys  who  fell  in  your  Civil  War.  Had  they  been  spared, 
the  problem  of  American  sovereignty  would  have  been  solved 
today. 


24  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

And,  sir,  Canada  cannot  afford  to  take  the  risk  or  to  pay  the 
price.  Not  from  weakness,  not  from  cowardice,  not  from  fear — 
not  that — the  best  blood  of  the  best  races  is  red  and  hot  in  our 
veins.  But,  sir,  the  thing  would  be  the  maddest  folly,  an  unimag- 
inable crime  against  humanity.  Before  it  need  be  done  we  ask 
that  the  necessity  for  it  be  swept  away.  And  Canada  desires 
this  pact  of  peace  not  for  her  own  sake  alone  but  for  the  world's. 
We  want  no  alliance  for  offense  or  for  aggression.  We  covet  the 
territory  of  no  kingdom  or  ruler  anywhere.  We  covet  not  their 
wealth.  The  flag  of  Canada  could  wave,  fold  in  fold  with  the 
flag  of  your  republic  on  the  Atlantic  and  on  the  Pacific,  not  to 
threaten,  not  to  inspire  fear,  but  to  guard  all  the  commerce  of 
the  world  that  sails  the  seas  and  to  keep  the  peace  for  all  the  people 
that  line  the  shores. 

My  last  word  is  this:  The  time  to  do  it  is  at  hand.  The  hour 
has  begun  to  strike.  The  tide  is  swelling  to  the  flood,  and  if  ever 
at  any  time,  or  anywhere,  I  have  the  right  to  speak  for  the  country 
where  I  was  born,  where  my  father  was  born  before  me,  my 
father's  father  before  him,  and  where  his  father,  and  his  father 
before  him  lived  and  died — if  ever  I  had  the  right  to  speak  for 
my  country,  or  for  the  empire  to  which  I  belong,  it  is  here  and  now, 
and  to  ask  that  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  the  King  and  the  President  joining  hands, 
shall  do  this  thing,  and  do  it  for  good  and  do  it  forever. 

President  Holt  introduced  the  next  speaker  as  follows: 

The  international  interests  of  the  United  States  up  to  the 
present  time  have  usually  followed  the  longitudes  rather  than  the 
latitudes.  Happily  we  have  at  last  begun  to  realize  that  Canada 
to  the  north  and  Latin  America  to  the  south  offer  as  profitable 
fields  for  travel,  commerce  and  friendship  as  Europe  and  Asia. 
If  it  is  true  that  Europe  is  the  land  of  yesterday  and  North 
America  the  land  of  today,  it  is  equally  certain  that  South  America 
is  the  land  of  tomorrow.  No  man  in  the  United  States  has  real- 
ized the  duty  of  cultivating  friendship  with  Latin  America  more 
than  the  next  speaker.     Whether  as  a  delegate  to  the  Pan-Amer_ 


ROWE 


25 


ican  Conference  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  in  1906,  as  president  of  the 
American  delegation  to  the  First  Pan-American  Scientific  Congress 
at  Santiago,  Chile,  as  adviser  to  the  Mexican  government  last 
September  when  the  great  University  of  Mexico  was  being  estab- 
lished, or  here  at  home  as  economist,  editor,  educator  and  states- 
man, he  has  ever  been  foremost  in  promoting  amity  and  commerce 
among  the  nations  of  the  New  World.  I  now  have  the  pleasure 
of  introducing  to  you  Professor  Leo  F.  Rowe  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  the  subject  of  whose  address  is  "The  Contribu- 
tion of  Latin  America  to  the  Cause  of  International  Peace." 

THE   CONTRIBUTIONS   OF  LATIN  AMERICA  TO  THE 
CAUSE  OF  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 

DR.  LEO.  S.  ROWE 

If  the  topic  which  I  have  selected  required  any  special  justi- 
fication, the  inquiries  which  I  have  received  during  the  last  two 
weeks  would  amply  furnish  it.  From  many  different  quarters 
the  question  has  been  put  to  me  "Is  it  possible  to  speak  of  the 
contributions  of  Latin  America  to  the  Cause  of  International 
Peace?"  "Would  it  riot  be  more  accurate  to  refer  to  these  coun- 
tries as  disturbing  factors  in  the  present  international  situation?" 
This  fundamentally  erroneous  view  of  the  part  played  by  the 
countries  of  Latin  America  in  the  development  of  the  principle 
of  international  arbitration  is  due  in  large  part  to  the  fact  that 
we  have  failed  to  interpret  the  development  of  Latin  American 
affairs  in  the  same  broad,  philosophic  spirit  that  has  been  applied 
to  the  study  of  international  relations  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 
In  fact,  throughout  the  United  States,  there  is  a  marked  tendency 
to  interpret  Latin  American  international  relations  as  if  they  were 
determined  by  the  personal  feeling  of  a  few  self-constituted  leaders 
rather  than  by  the  same  fundamental  economic  and  social  forces 
that  have  shaped  European  relations. 

When  the  present  international  situation  on  the  American  con- 
tinent is  studied  in  a  truly  scientific  spirit,  we  are  surprised  to  find 
how  many  have  been  the  contributions  of  the  countries  of  Latin 


26  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

America  to  the  principle  of  international  arbitration.  No  other 
section  of  the  world  has  shown  a  more  remarkable  degree  of  self- 
control  in  the  adjustment  of  international  affairs.  The  merit 
of  this  achievement  is  all  the  greater  because  of  the  exceptionally 
difl&cult  and  delicate  international  problems  involved. 

The  countries  of  Latin  America  emerged  into  independence 
with  most  of  their  frontiers  either  entirely  unsettled  or  in  an 
extremely  unsatisfactory  condition.  Many  of  these  disputes 
have  presented  questions  which  are  usually  regarded  as  so  vital 
as  hardly  to  permit  of  settlement  by  arbitration.  Nevertheless, 
the  countries  of  South  America  have  given  to  the  world  some  of 
the  most  striking  instances  of  a  pacific  settlement  of  such  contro- 
versies. Time  and  again  they  have  been  brought  to  the  verge  of 
war  because  of  a  seeming  impossibility  to  reach  a  solution  by  any 
other  means,  but  in  almost  every  case  the  governments  have 
found  that  the  principle  of  arbitration  is  in  no  sense  antagonistic 
to  any  of  the  vital  interests  involved. 

It  is  well  for  us  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  early  history  of  the 
United  States  was  characterized  by  an  uncompromising  attitude 
toward  all  questions  involving  national  boundaries.  The  fixed 
and  determined  purpose  to  secure  control  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi,  the  aggressive  position  assumed  in  the  settlement 
of  the  northwest  boundary,  our  attitude  toward  the  annexation 
of  Texas  and  the  control  of  California,  stand  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  position  of  the  Latin  American  countries  on  questions 
quite  as  vital  to  their  welfare.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that 
had  the  countries  of  Latin  America  taken  the  same  position  with 
reference  to  their  boundary  disputes  as  that  assumed  by  the 
United  States  during  the  first  half  of  the  century  of  our  national 
existence,  the  history  of  the  last  one  hundred  years  would  be  a 
record  of  continuous  and  bloody  struggles. 

The  international  questions  confronting  the  countries  of  Latin 
America  during  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  twentieth  have  been  far  more  difficult  and  delicate 
than  those  confronting  the  countries  of  Europe,  and  yet,  with 
two  exceptions  they  have  all  been  adjusted  either  through  direct 
diplomatic  negotiation  or  by  means  of  arbitration. 


ROWE  27 

The  spectacle  presented  to  the  world  at  the  close  of  the  Para- 
guayan War  when  that  country  lay  crushed  and  bleeding  at  the 
feet  of  Argentina,  Brazil  and  Uruguay,  may  well  serve  as  an  ex- 
ample to  all  the  nations  of  western  civilization.  For  a  time  it 
looked  as  if  Paraguay  would  be  made  the  Poland  of  South  Amer- 
ica. If  the  usual  European  standards  as  to  rights  acquired  by 
conquest  had  been  applied,  Paraguay  would  today  no  longer 
exist  on  the  map  as  an  independent  country.  At  the  suggestion 
of  the  Argentine  Republic,  it  was  agreed  by  the  conquering 
triple  alliance  that  victory  does  not  carry  with  it  the  right  to 
dismemberment  and  although  Paraguay  had  been  the  aggressor 
in  the  struggle,  the  people  of  the  country  were  not  made  to  suffer 
because  of  the  ambitions  of  a  political  dictator.  The  territorial 
integrity  of  the  country  was  respected  and  whatever  sacrifice 
this  may  have  involved  to  the  countries  which  had  achieved  so 
signal  a  victory  their  forbearance  and  self-control  saved  South 
America  from  a  series  of  subsequent  conflicts  which  the  partition 
of  Paraguay  would  undoubtedly  have  involved. 

The  Argentine  Republic  and  Uruguay  are  today  confronted  by 
an  international  question  so  difficult  and  delicate  that  it  can  only 
be  compared  with  our  own  policy  with  reference  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Mississippi.  Neither  the  government  nor  the  people  of 
the  United  States  would  for  a  moment  entertain  any  compromise 
with  reference  to  our  complete  and  absolute  control  of  the  Missis- 
sippi River.  Difficult  and  dangerous  as  is  the  question  of  the 
control  of  the  River  Plate,  both  the  governments  and  people 
of  Argentina  and  Uruguay  are  conscientiously  endeavoring  to 
find  a  satisfactory  solution. 

If  time  permitted,  instances  of  this  conciliatory  spirit  might  be 
indefinitely  multiplied.  My  main  purpose  is  to  show  that  in  the 
settlement  of  the  many  difficult  international  questions  confront- 
ing the  countries  of  Latin  America,  they  have  shown  a  degree  of 
forbearance  and  self-control  which  deserved  far  greater  recogni- 
tion, and  which  may  well  serve  as  an  inspiration  to  all  those  who 
are  interested  in  the  maintenance  of  international  peace.  Public 
opinion  in  the  United  States  has  been  misled  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  the  few  instances  in  which  arbitral  awards  have  been 


28  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

rejected  have  been  given  such  prominence  as  to  create  the  impres- 
sion that  the  countries  of  Latin  America  are  unmindful  of  the 
obligations  of  an  arbitral  award. 

The  fact  that  the  history  of  the  countries  of  Latin  America 
has  been  marked  by  many  internal  disturbances  has  obscured 
the  fact  that  in  their  international  relations  they  have  been  shown 
quite  a  different  spirit.  As  time  goes  on  we  will  recognize  more 
and  more  fully  the  debt  which  the  world  owes  to  the  forbearance 
and  self-control  which  have  made  the  history  of  international 
relations  in  South  America  a  record  of  consistent  attempts  to 
preserve  international  peace  in  the  face  of  great  difficulties  and, 
at  times,  great  provocation. 

The  services  of  the  countries  of  Latin  America  to  the  cause  of 
international  peace  have  not  been  confined  to  the  advance  of  the 
principle  of  arbitration.  They  have  made  positive  contributions 
to  other  branches  of  international  law  which  may  serve  as  an 
example  even  to  the  United  States. 

At  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  United  States 
took  the  lead  in  the  development  of  the  law  of  neutrality.  Impor- 
tant as  were  our  contributions  at  that  time  to  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  we  have  not  maintained  our  position  of  leadership.  One 
of  the  fruitful  sources  of  international  irritation  is  the  partici- 
pation of  the  citizens  of  one  country  in  the  domestic  disturbances 
of  another.  Our  present  law  of  neutrality  is  inadequate  to  pre- 
vent the  international  complications  which  arise  from  this  cause. 

Great  Britain  took  up  the  great  work  of  developing  the  law 
of  neutrality  at  the  point  at  which  it  was  abandoned  by  the 
United  States.  By  declaring  it  an  offense  for  any  of  her  subjects 
to  accept,  or  agree  to  accept  without  the  permission  of  the  British 
government,  any  commission  or  engagement  in  the  military  or 
naval  service  of  any  foreign  state  at  war  with  a  state,  with  which 
Great  Britain  is  at  peace,  an  important  step  was  taken  in  the 
development  of  neutral  obligations.  The  position  of  leadership 
assumed  by  Great  Britain  in  this  respect  has  been  followed  by 
some  of  the  larger  Latin  American  countries  and  the  world  is 
now  waiting  to  see  the  United  States  uphold  its  reputation  as 
the  historic  defender  of  neutral  rights  and  obligations  by  enlarging 


ROWE  29 

the  scope  of  neutral  obligations  of  our  citizens  and  giving  to  the 
executive  ample  power  to  enforce  such  obligations. 

The  opportunity  is  now  offered  to  the  United  States  to  take  a 
step  in  advance  of  that  taken  by  Great  Britain  by  making  it  an 
offense  for  our  citizens  to  participate  in  the  internal  disturbances 
of  another  country.  Some  way  must  be  found  to  overcome  any 
constitutional  difficulty  which  may  arise  respecting  the  possibility 
of  punishing  a  citizen  for  an  offense  committed  in  foreign  terri- 
tory. It  is  also  high  time  that  our  federal  legislation  strengthen 
the  arm  of  the  executive  in  dealing  with  the  forwarding  of  arms, 
munition  and  supplies  to  insurrectionary  movements.  The 
advanced  position  taken  by  the  Argentine  Republic  during 
the  recent  uprising  in  Uruguay  affords  an  excellent  instance  of 
the  possibility  of  a  broader  interpretation  of  neutral  obligations. 

At  the  present  moment  on  our  Mexican  border  the  executive 
is  powerless  to  prevent  such  shipments  because  we  still  hold  to 
the  theory  that  such  shipments  are  made  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  trade  and  commerce,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  interfered  with 
by  our  government.  Here  again  the  United  States  is  given  the 
opportunity  to  broaden  the  interpretation  of  neutral  obligations, 
and  in  so  doing  we  will  be  rendering  the  same  service  to  inter- 
national peace  as  the  Argentine  rendered  by  the  advanced  posi- 
tion which  she  took  during  the  Uruguayan  disturbances  above 
referred  to. 

With  a  century's  record  of  achievement  of  which  they  may  well 
be  proud,  the  countries  of  Latin  America  enter  into  the  present 
world  situation  as  important  factors  in  sustaining  and  develop- 
ing the  principle  of  arbitration.  When  the  final  balance  sheet 
of  America's  contribution  to  civilization  is  made  up,  a  leading 
position  must  be  given  to  the  important  part  which  the  new  world 
has  played  in  promoting  the  cause  of  international  peace.  In  this 
final  estimate  the  far-reaching  importance  of  Latin-America's 
contribution  will  not  be  overlooked. 

President  Holt  introduced  the  next  speaker  as  follows : 


30  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  next  gentleman  on  the  program  has  rendered  great  and 
enduring  service  to  his  country  and  to  the  cause  of  peace  as  an 
officer  in  the  State  Department.  He  particularly  deserves  the 
gratitude  of  all  good  men  for  the  invaluable  services  he  rendered 
the  cause  of  international  justice  when  he  was  agent  for  the 
Department  of  State  in  1909-1910,  at  the  trial  of  the  Oronoco 
case  between  the  United  States  and  Venezuela  before  The  Hague 
Tribunal, 

We  shall  now  have  the  great  profit  and  pleasure  of  hearing 
from  William  C.  Dennis,  Esq.,  of  Washington,  D.  C,  whose  sub- 
ject is  Compromise — the  Great  Defect  of  Arbitration. 

COMPROMISE— THE     GREAT    DEFECT    OF  ARBITRA- 
TION 

WILLIAM   C.    DENNIS 

"Respect  for  the  rights  of  others  is  peace"  was  a  famous  saying 
of  a  great  Mexican  patriot,  lawyer  and  statesman,  whose  whole 
life  was  consecrated  to  the  endeavor  to  establish  the  reign  of  law 
but  whose  entire  career  by  the  bitter  irony  of  fate  was  spent  in  the 
midst  of  warfare.  For  Juarez  found,  as  many  great  and  good 
men  have  found  before  and  since,  that  the  world  is  full  of  those 
who  are  not  yet  willing  to  respect  the  rights  of  others,  and  as  he 
was  unable,  owing  to  adverse  circumstances,  to  secure  justice 
for  his  countrymen  through  law  they  took  up  arms  to  obtain 
justice  through  force. 

Force  and  law  have  long  been  competitors  and  rivals  in  the 
history  of  the  individual.  For  hundreds  of  years  trial  by  combat 
and  trial  by  jury  were  competing  remedies  in  England  and  only 
by  slow,  painful  degrees  did  trial  by  jury  prove  its  fitness  to  sur- 
vive because  it  was  a  cheaper,  surer,  better  way  of  obtaining 
justice. 

In  the  same  way  arbitration  and  war  are  now  competing  reme- 
dies. War  is  "the  state  in  which  a  nation  prosecutes  its  right 
by  force," — arbitration  is,  or  ought  to  be,  an  appeal  to  reason  to 
do  justice  according  to  law.     History  seems  to  show  that  rightly 


DENNIS  31 

or  wrongly  nations  like  men  will  continue  to  appeal  to  force  to 
secure  what  they  deem  to  be  their  just  right  until  they  become 
convinced  that  there  is  some  surer  and  better  way  of  obtaining 
justice,  and  arbitration  can  only  hope  to  replace  war  as  it  demon- 
strates its  superiority  in  actual  practice.  Prima  facie  this  would 
not  seem  to  be  a  very  severe  requirement  for  it  would  appear  that 
anyone  who  looks  at  the  matter  philosophically  must  admit  that 
the  worst  arbitral  sentence  which  has  ever  been  rendered  is  infin- 
itely more  to  be  desired  than  any  war,  but  unfortunately  most 
men  are  not  philosophers  and  they  cannot  be  expected  in  weigh- 
ing the  relative  advantages  of  arbitration  and  war  to  consider 
ultimate  results.  If  the  municipal  courts  only  replaced  private 
warfare  among  individuals  after  the  courts  had  been  brought  to 
a  relatively  high  state  of  perfection  through  long  experience,  it 
can  hardly  be  expected  that  nations  will  be  more  reasonable 
than  men  or  that  they  will  discard  their  swords  for  ploughshares 
in  order  to  submit  their  difiiculties  to  tribunals  less  efficient  than 
those  which  have  been  found  necessary  for  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes among  men.  In  other  words,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  before  international  arbitration  can  banish  warfare  it  must 
afford  at  least  as  satisfactory  a  method  of  obtaining  justice  be- 
tween nations  as  our  municipal  tribunals  now  afford  between 
individuals. 

It  therefore  becomes  the  most  pressing  duty  of  the  hour  for  all 
those  interested  in  the  abolition  of  war  to  study  the  present  sys- 
tem of  international  arbitration  with  a  view  to  so  eliminating  its 
defects  that  it  may  speedily  emerge  victorious  in  the  struggle 
for  the  survival  of  the  fittest  which  is  now  going  on  between  arbi- 
tration and  war. 

The  most  striking  characteristic  of  arbitration  as  it  exists  today 
between  individuals,  as  a  supplement  to  the  regular  courts,  a 
characteristic  which  is  peculiarly  apparent  when  arbitration  is 
applied  to  matters  of  general  public  interest,  such  as  labor  dis- 
putes, is  the  irresistible  tendency  shown  by  arbitrators  to  compro- 
mise and  split-the-difference  instead  of  doing  justice  though  the 
heavens  fall. 

Almost  every  American  who  has  represented  the  United  States 


32  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

before  an  international  tribunal  has  made  a  record  of  his  conclu- 
sion that  international  arbitration  shows  the  same  tendency. 
Gallatin,  who  represented  the  United  States  in  the  Northeastern 
Boundary  arbitration  with  Great  Britain  correctly  foresaw  the 
results  of  that  and  many  other  arbitrations  when  he  said: 

"An  arbitrator,  whether  he  be  king  or  farmer,  rarely  decides 
on  strict  principle  of  law;  he  has  always  a  bias  to  try  if  possible 
to  split  the  difference." 

And  General  Harrison,  counsel  for  Venezuela  in  the  British 
Guiana  boundary  arbitration,  General  Foster,  Agent  of  the  United 
States  in  the  Behring  Sea  and  Alaska  boundary  arbitrations,  Mr. 
Carter,  counsel  in  the  Behring  Sea  arbitration,  and  Mr.  Root, 
counsel  for  the  United  States  in  the  recent  North  Atlantic  Fish- 
eries arbitration,  all  have  told  the  same  story. 

Passing  from  the  argument  from  analogy  and  the  argument 
from  authority  to  the  argument  from  history,  a  necessarily  brief 
review  of  the  actual  results  in  certain  typical  and  important 
arbitrations  fully  sustains  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  Ameri- 
can lawyers  and  statesmen  who  have  had  the  best  opportunity 
to  judge  arbitration  at  first  hand.  Take,  for  instance,  what  may 
perhaps  be  fairly  regarded  as  five  typical  and  leading  arbitrations 
in  which  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  concerned 
prior  to  the  inauguration  of  The  Hague  Tribunal:  The  arbitra- 
tion between  the  United  States  and  England  over  the  Northeast- 
ern Boundary,  before  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  under  the 
treaty  of  September  29,  1827;  the  Alabama  arbitration  with  Great 
Britain  under  the  treaty  of  Washington;  the  arbitration  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  regarding  the  northwestern 
or  San  Juan  boundary  before  the  Emperor  of  Germany  under 
other  articles  of  the  same  treaty;  the  Behring  Sea  arbitration  with 
Great  Britain,  and  finally,  the  arbitration  between  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela  over  the  British  Guiana  boundary  which,  in  view 
of  the  circumstances  may  well  be  classed  with  the  other  Anglo- 
American  arbitrations. 

In  the  first  of  these  cases,  the  Northeastern  Boundary  arbitra- 
tion, the  royal  arbitrator  frankly  admitted  his  inability  to  render 
a  judicial  decision  and  recommended  a  compromise,   a  course 


DENNIS  33 

which  amounted  to  such  a  clear  departure  from  the  terms  of  the 
submission  that  the  United  States  refused  to  abide  by  the  award 
and  Great  Britain  acquiesced  in  this  decision.  And  it  is  generally 
admitted  that  the  Behring  Sea  award  and  the  British  Guiana 
award,  however  useful  they  may  have  been  in  disposing  of  very 
troublesome  difficulties  which  might  have  led  to  war,  cannot 
be  deemed  to  rank  as  judicial  decisions.  This  leaves  only  the 
San  Juan  and  Alabama  arbitration  awards  which  can  fairly  claim 
to  stand  as  decisions  which,  whether  right  or  wrong  in  their 
results,  were  judicial  decisions  upon  the  law  and  the  facts  as  under- 
stood by  the  arbitrators — a  ratio  of  three  compromises  out  of 
five   arbitrations. 

Turning  to  the  arbitral  decisions  of  The  Hague  Tribunal,  now 
nine  in  number,  the  result,  as  was  to  be  expected,  is  more  encourag- 
ing. In  the  first  decision  of  The  Hague  Court,  in  the  Pious 
Fund  case,  the  Tribunal  found  in  favor  of  the  United  States  on 
every  point  except  one,  and  that  one  point  was  of  such  difficulty 
that  it  is  believed  without  unjust  suspicion  that  the  decision  was 
the  result  of  a  compromise  based  on  the  fact  that  it  was  re- 
solved in  favor  of  the  defeated  litigant.  In  the  next  two  cases, 
the  Venezuela  Preferential  case  and  the  Japanese  House  Tax 
case,  the  decisions  were  all  one  way  and  consequently  the  idea 
of  compromise,  at  least  as  to  the  result,  is  precluded,  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  recent  Savaker  extradition  case  between  Great 
Britain  and  France.  In  the  fourth  and  seventh  cases  before 
The  Hague  Tribunal,  the  case  of  the  Muscat  Dhows  and  the 
Norway-Sweden  Boundary  arbitration,  the  decisions,  while  not 
absolutely  in  favor  of  either  party  appear  to  an  outsider  at  least 
to  be  so  reasonably  founded  on  the  law  and  the  facts  as  to  be  fairly 
exempt  from  the  charge  of  being  matters  of  compromise.  In- 
deed, it  is  submitted  that  the  Norway-Sweden  decision  is  upon  the 
whole,  from  a  technical  point  of  view,  one  of  the  most  creditable 
achievements  of  The  Hague  Tribunal.  This  leaves  for  discussion 
the  Casablanca  arbitration  between  France  and  Germany,  the 
North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  case  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  and  the  Orinoco  Steamship  Company  case 
between  the  United  States  and  Venezuela. 


34  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

In  the  Casablanca  case  The  Hague  Court  probably  rendered 
its  greatest  contribution,  so  far,  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  That 
case  of  all  those  decided  by  the  Tribunal  was  sent  to  the  court 
under  the  imminent  threat  of  war,  and  although  its  decision 
depended  upon  matters  of  law  and  fact,  it  also,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  was  thought  to  involve  what  are  commonly 
called  questions  of  national  honor.  It  is  an  ungracious  task  to 
criticize  a  decision  which  was  accepted  as  satisfactory  by  the 
people  of  both  countries  litigant,  and  which  has  been  of  such  prac- 
tical benefit  to  the  world  as  has  this  decision,  but  of  course  this 
case  cannot  pretend,  either  in  the  result  reached  or  the  opinion 
rendered,  to  rank  as  a  judicial  decision.  Dr.  Lammasch,  four 
times  a  member  and  three  times  a  president  of  tribunals  sitting 
under  The  Hague  Conventions,  has  expressed  the  well-nigh 
universal  opinion  when  he  refers  to  this  case  in  a  recent  magazine 
article   as   having   a   ''preponderatingly   diplomatic   character." 

As  regards  the  remaining  two  decisions  of  The  Hague  Tribunal, 
the  North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  arbitration  and  the  Orinoco 
Steamship  case,  the  situation  is  more  complex.  The  general 
result  in  the  Fisheries  case  was  a  decision  in  favor  of  the  United 
States,  although  some  of  the  American  contentions  were  not 
sustained,  and  it  would  require  an  intimate  acquaintance  with 
and  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  decision  to  reach  any  conclu- 
sion as  to  just  how  far  certain  findings  of  the  court  were  affected 
by  the  spirit  of  compromise.  It  is  significant,  however,  that  Dr. 
Lammasch,  the  president  of  the  Tribunal,  has  himself  said,  in 
the  article  already  referred  to,  that  the  judgment  in  the  North 
Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  case  "contained  elements  of  a  compro- 
mise." 

Dr.  Lammasch  defends  this  course  on  the  ground  that  "the 
court  had  received  special  and  extraordinary  full  powers  for  this 
purpose."  It  is  submitted  with  all  deference  however,  that  the 
very  specific  and  detailed  terms  of  submission  under  which  the 
court  was  sitting  will  be  searched  in  vain  when  justly  construed 
for  any  authority  to  compromise. 

The  situation  in  the  Orinoco  Steamship  case  in  which  Dr. 
Lammasch  also  presided  is  much  the  same.     The  decision  upon 


DENNIS  35 

the  great  question  of  principle  involved,  the  right  judicially  to 
revise  an  international  award,  and  in  all  its  larger  aspects,  is  in 
favor  of  the  United  States,  although  the  holding  of  the  tribunal 
on  one  point  resulted  in  the  failure  to  allow  the  principal  item  of 
damage  claimed  by  this  Government.  The  decision  has,  however, 
been  very  sharply  criticized  in  Venezuela  in  articles  which  bear 
every  earmark  of  having  emanated  from  someone  connected  with 
the  Venezuelan  Agency  at  The  Hague,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  a  compromise.  In  view  of  Dr.  Lammasch's  admission 
with  regard  to  the  North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  case,  and  in  the 
light  of  the  terms  of  submission  and  the  contentions  of  the  parties 
in  case,  counter-case  and  argument,  it  seems  reasonable  to  infer 
that  certain  portions  of  this  opinion,  which  was  likewise  written 
by  him,  also  contain  elements  of  compromise. 

Summing  up  the  results  of  this  necessarily  brief  examination 
of  the  decisions  of  The  Hague  Court,  so  far  rendered,  it  would 
seem  that  there  are  six  decisions  which  at  least,  on  the  face  of  the 
record  are  not  open  to  the  criticism  that  they  are  based  on  com- 
promise so  far  at  least  as  the  actual  decisions  are  concerned;  one 
decision,  the  Casablanca  award,  which  is  unquestionably  a  com- 
promise, and  two  decisions  which  are  fairly  subject  to  the  sugges- 
tion that  they  are,  as  to  some  points  at  least,  affected  by  the  spirit 
of  compromise. 

Stating  this  result  as  strongly  as  possible  against  the  court, 
it  would  give  six  judicial  decisions  to  three  decisions  in  whole  or 
in  part  affected  by  the  spirit  of  compromise,  a  marked  improve- 
ment over  previous  conditions  and  a  very  short  ground  for  en- 
couragement; but  it  remains  true,  that  arbitration  even  at  The 
Hague  Tribunal  still  frequently  results  in  compromise. 

It  is,  however,  a  fair  question  whether  or  not,  after  all,  this 
can  properly  be  said  to  be  a  defect  in  arbitration,  and  it  has  been 
and  is  argued  by  those  whose  opinions  are  entitled  to  the  greatest 
respect,  that  the  tendency  of  arbitrators  to  compromise,  so  far 
from  being  a  defect  is  in  fact  an  advantage,  or  at  most,  under 
present  conditions,  a  necessary  condition  to  peaceful  settlement. 
Bourgeois,  at  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  in  discussing  the 
establishment  of  the  proposed  permanent  court  of  arbitral  jus- 


36  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

tice,  maintained  that  even  if  the  new  judicial  tribunal  were  estab- 
lished, the  present  so-called  Hague  Tribunal  should  be  continued 
for  the  disposition  of  matters  which  the  nations  were  not  yet 
ready  to  submit  to  a  judicial  tribunal,  and  it  has  been  suggested 
quite  recently  that  if  the  proposed  judicial  tribunal  were  estab- 
lished, that  tribunal  and  the  present  Hague  Court  would  "prob- 
ably operate  side  by  side  for  several  decades  before  the  more 
perfect  one  finally  supplants  the  other."  It  may  well  be  doubted, 
however,  whether  there  is  any  real  field  for  admitted  compro- 
mise outside  the  domain  of  diplomacy  and  mediation.  As 
President  Harrison  said,  when  vainly  appealing  to  the  Umpire 
of  the  British- Guiana  Boundary  Commission  for  a  judicial  deci- 
sion, 

"If  conventions,  if  accommodations,  and  if  the  rule  of  give 
and  take  are  to  be  used,  then  let  the  diplo  matists  settle  the  ques- 
tion. But  when  these  have  failed  in  their  work,  and  the  question 
between  two  great  nations  is  submitted  for  judgment,  it  seems  to 
me  necessarily  to  imply  the  introduction  of  a  judicial  element 
into  the  tribunal." 

If  once  a  judicial  tribunal  were  really  established  it  is  believed 
that  there  would  be  little  recourse  to  arbitration  before  the  present 
tribunal,  which  would  in  that  event  be  discredited  as  an  open 
effort  to  secure  a  compromise  and  would  lose  its  present  facility 
for  affording  a  compromise  under  the  guise  of  a  judicial  decision. 
It  is  not  intended  to  suggest  that  a  compromise  is  not  frequently, 
even  generally  more  to  be  desired  than  an  international  law  suit, 
but  it  is  suggested,  that  when  a  compromise  is  desired,  diplomacy, 
mediation,  and  a  reference  to  an  amiable  compositeur  afford  ample 
and  open  means  for  reaching  this  result.  Compromise  reached 
through  negotiation,  diplomacy,  mediation,  is  in  the  interests 
of  peace  and  good  neighborship;  compromise  reached  by  a  tribu- 
nal, such  as  The  Hague  Tribunal  which  is  under  an  obligation  to 
judge  according  to  the  law  and  the  facts,  and  which  may  know 
little  or  nothing  of  the  consideration  of  sentiment  and  expediency, 
which  are  properly  considered  in  reaching  a  compromise,  is,  it 
is  submitted,  in  the  long  run,  a  stumbling-block  in  the  pathway 
to  peace  through  justice. 


DENNIS  37 

Having  reached  the  conclusion  that  arbitration  has  in  the  past 
frequently  resulted  in  compromise  rather  than  in  justice  accord- 
ing to  the  law,  and  that  this  is  still  the  case  although  in  a  less 
degree  and  that  this  condition  of  affairs  although  natural  is  most 
regrettable,  it  remains  to  consider  briefly  the  causes  of  this  situ- 
ation and  to  suggest  some  possible  remedies.  Doubtless  it  is 
true  that  the  fundamental  cause  lies  in  the  nature  of  arbitration 
itself,  for  as  Gallatin  says  "an  arbiter,  whether  he  be  king  or  farmer 
.  .  .  .  is  always  biased  to  try  if  possible  to  split  the  differ- 
ence." Doubtless  it  is  also  true  that  the  fundamental  and  ulti- 
mate remedy,  therefore,  for  compromise  and  arbitration  is  to 
substitute  for  arbitration  a  permanent  judicial  tribunal  to  do 
justice  between  nations,  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
establishment  and  successful  operation  of  such  a  tribunal  are  still 
serious.  These  difficulties  will  doubtless  all  yield  in  time  to 
intelligent  and  broadminded  diplomacy,  but  whether  the  time 
required  be  short  as  we  all  hope,  or  considerable  as  some  of  us 
fear,  it  is  believed  that  there  are  certain  suggestions  which  can 
be  immediately  put  into  operation  and  which  will  make  for  the 
elimination  of  compromise  in  arbitration.  These  suggestions  have 
reference  first  to  the  framing  of  the  terms  of  submission,  second  to 
the  selection  of  the  judges,  and  third  to  the  procedure  before 
international  tribunals,  and  finally  to  the  importance  of  main- 
taining and  perfecting  the  right  to  revise  and  set  aside  arbitral 
awards  and  the  establishment  of  a  regular  system  of  appeal  in 
certain  cases. 

Perhaps  no  better  illustration  of  the  difference  between  terms 
of  submission  framed  with  a  view  to  a  compromise  and  terms  of 
submission  framed  with  a  view  to  securing  a  judicial  decision, 
can  be  found,  than  by  a  comparison  of  the  compromise  between 
German  and  France  providing  for  the  submission  of  the  Casa- 
blanca incident  to  The  Hague  Court  and  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  Washington  submitting  the  San  Juan  Boundary  dis- 
pute between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  to  the  arbit- 
rament of  the  Emperor  of  Germany. 

The  Casablanca  compromise  after  reciting  that  the  two  govern- 
ments had  agreed  "to  submit  to  arbitration  all  the  questions 


38  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

raised  by  the  events  which  happened  at  Casablanca  on  the  25th 
of  last  September,"  provided  in  articles  i  and  9  as  follows: 

"Article  I.  An  arbitral  tribunal  constituted  as  here  stated 
is  empowered  to  decide  the  questions  of  fact  and  law  raised  by  the 
events  which  happened  at  Casablanca  on  the  25th  of  last  Sep- 
tember between  the  oflEicials  of  the  two  governments." 

Article  IX.  After  the  tribunal  shall  have  decided  the  ques- 
tions of  fact  and  law  which  are  submitted  to  it,  it  shall  determine 
in  accordance  therewith  the  situation  of  the  individuals  arrested 
on  the  25th  of  last  September  in  regard  to  which  there  is  a 
dispute." 

It  may  be  well  that  the  negotiators  who  framed  the  compro- 
mise in  the  general  terms  were  really  seeking  a  compromise  and 
not  a  judicial  decision,  and  this  suggestion  becomes  the  more 
plausible  when  it  is  remembered  that  it  is  the  general  understand- 
ing that  Messrs.  Renault  and  Kriege,  respectively  the  advisers 
of  the  foreign  ofi&ces  of  France  and  Germany,  framed  the  terms  of 
the  compromise  and  that  these  same  eminent  juris-consults  were 
the  national  members  of  The  Hague  Tribunal  which  rendered 
the  Casablanca  award.  If  there  is  reason  to  expect  that  a  case 
will  be  compromised  instead  of  decided,  it  would  seem  most  desir- 
able that  nationals  who  understand  the  questions  of  policy  in- 
volved should  be  members  of  the  tribunal.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  perhaps  not  quite  fair  to  score  up  the  Casablanca 
compromise  against  international  arbitration  in  general.  Con- 
trast with  the  compromise  in  this  case  articles  34-40  of  the  Treaty 
of  Washington  which  provided  for  the  submission  of  the  San 
Juan  Boundary  dispute  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  this  dispute  grew  out  of  the  terms 
of  the  Treaty  of  1846  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Brit- 
ain, governing  the  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  which  provided  for  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  boundary  line  along  the  ''49th  parallel  of  North 
latitude  to  the  middle  of  the  channel  which  separates  the  conti- 
nent from  Vancouver's  Island;  and  thence  southerly  through 
the  middle  of  said  channel  and  of  Fuca's  Straits  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean:  Provided,   however,   that  the  navigation  of  the    whole 


DENNIS  39 

of  the  said  channel  and  straits,  south  of  the  49th  parallel  of  North 
latitude,  remain  free  and  open  to  both  parties." 

The  Treaty  of  1846  was  negotiated  under  the  threat  of  the  war 
cry  of  "Fifty-four  forty  or  fight,"  as  a  last  effort  to  prevent  war 
between  the  two  contracting  parties.  It  was  a  case  where  it  was 
deemed  more  important  to  reach  some  agreement  than  to  reach  a 
precise  and  definite  agreement,  and  accordingly  the  treaty  was 
negotiated,  signed  and  ratified  although  both  parties  were  aware 
that  the  channel  between  Vancouver's  Island  and  the  mainland 
was  filled  by  an  archipelago  of  islands,  through  which  there  were 
at  least  two  distinct  channels,  the  Canal  de  Haro  and  the  channel 
subsequently  known  as  Rosario  Straits,  one  on  the  British  and 
one  on  the  American  side  shown  by  the  maps  used  by  the  nego- 
tiators and  yet  the  negotiators  contented  themselves  by  referring 
to  the  "middle  of  the  channel"  without  specifying  any  particular 
channel. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  not  remarkable  that  a  dis- 
pute almost  immediately  arose  as  to  whether  the  boundary  line 
should  be  drawn  through  the  Canal  de  Haro  or  the  Rosario 
Straits;  in  1869  a  convention  was  negotiated  by  Reverdy  Johnson 
and  Lord  Clarendon  providing  for  the  submission  of  the  San 
Juan  Boundary  dispute  to  the  President  of  the  Swiss  Federation. 
The  terms  of  this  convention  authorized  the  referee  in  case  he 
"should  be  unable  to  ascertain  and  determine  the  precise  line 
intended  by  the  words  of  the  treaty.  ...  to  determine 
upon  some  line  which  in  his  opinion  will  furnish  an  equitable 
solution  of  the  difficulty  and  will  be  the  nearest  approximation 
that  can  be  made  to  an  accurate  construction  of  the  words  of 
the  treaty." 

The  Johnson-Clarendon  Convention  was  not  approved  by  the 
Senate,  and  the  matter  came  up  for  adjustment  in  the  negotiation 
leading  up  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  During  these  nego- 
tiations the  British  commissioners  proposed  compromise  on  a 
middle  channel  "generally  known  as  the  Douglas  Channel." 
This  proposal  was  declined  and  it  was  decided  to  submit  the 
matter  to  arbitration.  Thereupon  "the  British  commissioners 
proposed  that  the  arbitrator  should  have  the  right  to  draw  the 


40  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

boundary  through  an  intermediate  channel.  The  American  com- 
missioners declined  this  proposal,  stating  that  they  desired  a 
decision  not  a  compromise," 

In  accordance  with  the  desire  of  the  American  commissioners 
for  a  judicial  decision  the  question  was  submitted  in  perfectly 
clear-cut  form.  The  American  claim  of  the  Canal  de  Haro  and 
the  British  claim  of  Rosario  Straits  were  stated  and  the  umpire 
was  asked  to  decide  ''which  of  those  claims  is  most  in  accordance 
with  the  true  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  June  15,  1846. 

The  award  of  the  Emperor  of  Germany  was  precisely  responsive 
to  the  question  submitted.  The  Emperor's  decision  reads  as 
follows : 

"Most  in  accordance  with  the  true  interpretations  of  the  treaty 
concluded  on  the  15th  of  June,  1846,  between  the  governments 
of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  and  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
is  the  claim  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  that  the 
boundary-line  between  the  territories  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty 
and  the  United  States  should  be  drawn  through  the  Haro  Chan- 
nel." 

The  San  Juan  Boundary  arbitration  is  an  instance  of  an  arbi- 
tration relating  to  that  class  of  questions  which  of  all  others  is 
most  prone  to  breed  compromise,  namely,  boundary  disputes, 
submitted  to  a  foreign  sovereign  (and  the  head  of  a  state  is  per- 
haps of  all  arbitrators  most  under  the  temptation  to  compromise) 
and  yet  a  clear-cut  judicial  decision  was  obtained  because  the 
American  negotiators  who  framed  the  terms  of  submission  "de- 
sired a  decision  not  a  compromise,"  and  said  so  in  the  treaty. 

Even  with  all  possible  care  in  making  definite  the  terms  of 
submission  and  with  the  utmost  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
arbitrator,  compromise  will  doubtless  occasionally  result.  Such 
for  instance  was  the  case  in  the  Northeastern  Boundary  arbitra- 
tion between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  where  suffi- 
ciently definite  questions  appear  to  have  been  submitted  to  the 
royal  arbitrator,  and  yet,  nevertheless,  the  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands, acting  upon  the  advice  of  commissioners,  to  whom  the 
case  had  been  referred,  practically  confessed  inability  to  answer 
the  questions  of  construction  submitted  upon  the  evidence  before 


DENNIS  41 

him  and  recommended  a  compromise  line.  In  this  case,  however, 
the  perfect  good  faith  of  the  arbitrator  in  stating  the  method  by 
which  his  award  had  been  reached  enabled  the  United  States, 
with  the  acquiescence  of  Great  Britain,  to  decline  to  accept  the 
award  on  the  ground  that  it  amounted  to  a  departure  from  the 
terms  of  submission.  Against  possible  bad  faith  or  stupidity 
on  the  part  of  an  arbitrator  no  care  in  framing  the  terms  of  sub- 
mission can  wholly  provide,  but  the  recent  decision  of  The  Hague 
Court  in  the  Orinoco  Steamship  case  setting  aside  the  award 
of  the  umpire  of  the  United  States  and  Venezuela  Mixed  Com- 
mission of  1903  in  that  case,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  exceeded 
the  terms  of  submission,  suggests  that  arbitrators  in  the  future 
who  expect  their  decisions  to  stand,  must  at  least  make  a  reason- 
able showing  of  abiding  by  the  terms  of  the  submission  from  which 
alone  they  draw  their  authority. 

With  respect  to  the  selection  of  judges  so  much  has  been  said 
that  little  can  be  added  to  any  purpose.  It  has  repeatedly  been 
pointed  out  that  nationals  should  be  excluded  from  arbitral  tri- 
bunals if  compromise  is  to  be  avoided.  It  has  furthermore  been 
pointed  out  that  every  ejffort  should  be  made  to  exclude  parti- 
sans from  the  tribunal,  and  under  partisans,  of  course,  should 
be  excluded  those  judges  who  are  prejudiced  for  or  against  either 
of  the  parties  litigant  or  who  have  irrevocably  made  up  their 
minds  in  advance  upon  any  of  the  questions  submitted.  It  has 
been  suggested  that  partisanship  upon  the  bench  might  be  elim- 
inated by  permitting  the  right  of  challenge  in  the  selection  of 
judges  under  The  Hague  Convention,  as  in  the  case  of  the  selec- 
tion of  jurymen  in  our  municipal  courts. 

It  is  submitted,  however,  that  such  an  arrangement  might 
easily  operate  as  a  similar  right  of  challenge  did  operate  in  the 
English  House  of  Commons  in  making  up  committees  to  judge 
contested  election  cases,  where  the  process  of  challenging  was 
familiarly  referred  to  as  "knocking  the  brains  out  of  the  com- 
mittee." And,  moreover,  such  a  process  might  easily  tend  to 
create  international  misunderstanding  and  friction  which  it  is  the 
very  purpose  of  arbitration  to  avoid.  It  is  suggested  that  the 
benefits  to  be  secured  by  the  right  of  challenge  could  be  largely 


42  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

obtained  without  these  disadvantages  if  in  every  instance  the 
parties  litigant  made  an  earnest  effort  to  designate  all  the  judges 
by  "direct  agreement"  as  suggested  in  article  46  of  The  Hague 
Convention  of  1907,  rather  than  by  the  more  elaborate  formula 
provided  in  the  same  article. 

It  is  believed  that  if  both  parties  litigant  are  really  desirous 
of  a  capable  and  impartial  tribunal,  selection  by  direct  agreement 
would  be  the  best  of  all  methods  available  so  long  as  resort  is  to 
be  had   to   the  present  Hague  Tribunal. 

With  respect  to  procedure,  it  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  point  out 
that  the  provisions  of  the  present  Hague  Conventions  still  leave 
much  to  the  imagination  of  the  tribunal  and  agents  of  the  two 
litigating  governments.  There  is  no  generally  accepted  system 
of  pleading  in  international  arbitrations.  There  seems  to  be  no 
agreement  upon  what  the  case  and  counter-case  ought  to  contain. 
Under  the  present  system,  as  it  works  out  in  practice,  argument 
is  mixed  with  the  statement  of  the  case  and  new  evidence  is  intro- 
duced in  the  midst  of  oral  argument,  all  with  apparent  impunity. 
There  is  no  general  understanding  as  regards  such  matters  as 
discovery,  interlocutory  motions  or  order  of  argument. 

And  finally,  the  question  of  language  remains  one  of  the  most 
serious  practical  questions  connected  with  international  arbitra- 
tion. It  is  submitted  that  irrespective  of  what  may  be  thought 
as  to  the  advisability  of  the  codification  of  substantive  interna- 
tional law,  the  framing  of  at  least  a  simple  code  of  arbitral 
procedure  is  one  of  the  present  needs  of  international  arbitration 
and  one  of  the  most  effective  steps  which  can  be  taken  to  elimi- 
nate compromise. 

One  further  matter  of  procedure,  directly  affecting  the  tribunal 
seems  to  be  worthy  of  more  attention  than  it  has  received.  Arbi- 
tral tribunals  generally,  and  the  various  tribunals  sitting  under 
The  Hague  Conventions  in  particular,  have  striven  valiantly 
for  unanimity.  The  president  of  the  British  Guiana  Boundary 
tribunal,  one  of  the  worst  offenders  in  the  matter  of  compromise, 
in  his  closing  remarks  laid  special  stress  upon  the  unanimity  of 
the  decision  in  that  case  which  he  contrasted  favorably  to  the 
decision  in  the  courts  which  decided  the  Alabama  and  Behring 


DENNIS  43 

Sea  arbitrations.  And  Sir  Richard  Webster,  counsel  for  Great 
Britain,  followed  the  president  in  a  similar  strain. 

In  his  remarks  at  the  close  of  the  Pious  Fund  arbitration  the 
president  of  that  tribunal  also  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
unanimity  with  which  the  tribunal  had  arrived  at  its  decision  was 
a  guarantee  of  the  correctness  of  its  conclusions.  Professor  Mat- 
zen,  however,  was  able  to  say  in  that  case  that  "each  judge  for 
himself  and  all  together"  had  arrived  "at  the  same  conclusion." 
When  this  truly  can  be  said,  unanimity  is  indeed  persuasive  of 
the  correctness  of  the  decision  reached  and  of  the  arguments  upon 
which  it  is  founded. 

But  it  is  believed  that  too  often  in  the  history  of  arbitration 
unanimity  has  been  purchased  at  the  price  of  mutual  concession — 
of  compromise — and  of  the  subtlest  and  in  some  respects  the  most 
injurious  of  all  forms  of  compromise,  namely,  compromise  as  to 
the  reasons  given  for  the  decision,  reasons  which  may  affect  not 
only  the  particular  arbitration  in  question  but  the  development 
of  international  law.  Unanimity  purchased  by  the  emasculation 
and  befogging  of  the  opinion  of  the  court  comes  at  too  high  a  price. 

Dr.  Drago's  clear-cut  dissenting  opinion  on  question  5  of  the 
North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  case,  irrespective  of  the  merits 
of  the  conclusion  which  he  reaches,  is,  it  is  believed,  one  of  the 
most  hopeful  incidents  in  the  recent  history  of  arbitration. 

Article  52  of  The  Hague  Convention  of  1899  required  the  award 
to  be  "drawn  up  in  writing  and  signed  by  each  member  of  the 
Tribunal,"  whereas,  according  to  the  present  Hague  Convention, 
it  is  merely  required  that  the  word  award  be  "signed  by  the  presi- 
dent and  registrar,  or  by  the  secretary  acting  as  registrar." 

It  is  submitted  that  this  change  is  unfortunate.  It  is  much 
easier  for  a  judge  to  silently  acquiesce  in  a  compromise  opinion 
which  is  entirely  satisfactory  neither  to  him  nor  to  anyone  else, 
than  it  is  to  sign  his  name  to  such  an  opinion.  It  is  suggested 
that  future  agreements  for  arbitration  should  require,  as  did  the 
special  agreement  in  the  North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  arbi- 
tration that  the  opinion  and  award  be  signed  by  every  arbitrator 
assenting  thereto.  And  it  is  suggested  that  it  might  even  be 
well  to  go  farther  and  require  a  specific  statement  in  the  opinion 


44  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

that  not  only  the  result  but  the  reasoning  in  the  opinion  is  con- 
curred in  by  all  who  sign. 

Finally,  it  is  suggested  that  in  addition  to  the  Hmited  right  to 
revision  secured  by  the  present  Hague  Convention  and  in  addition 
to  the  right  to  disregard  and  have  judicially  annulled  a  judgment 
which  has  disregarded  the  terms  of  the  submission  (a  right  which 
has  just  been  vindicated  by  The  Hague  Tribunal)  it  is  worthy 
of  serious  consideration  whether  or  not  the  next  Hague  Conference 
should  not  make  some  provision  for  appeal  in  certain  cases  for  the 
correction  of  error  similar  to  that  which  has  been  found  necessary 
in  municipal  law.  A  precedent  for  such  provision  indeed  can  be 
found  in  the  unratified  Olney-Pauncefote  Treaty  of  1897. 

It  is  submitted  that  with  care  in  the  framing  of  the  terms  of 
submission,  direct  argument  as  to  the  selection  of  the  judges, 
a  simple,  clear  code  of  arbitral  procedure  and  maintenance  and 
amplification  of  the  right  of  revision,  and  the  right  to  set  aside 
an  award  which  disregards  the  terms  of  submission,  together 
with  provision  for  appeal  in  proper  cases  for  the  correction  of 
error,  compromise  may  be  largely  banished  from  international 
arbitration,  even  before  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  court 
of  arbitral  justice. 

In  introducing  the  last  speaker  at  the  First  Session  of  the  Con- 
gress, President  Holt  remarked  that  no  man  in  the  United  States 
had  a  more  intimate  and  detailed  knowledge  of  the  Peace  Move- 
ment than  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  formerly  of  Boston,  and 
now  of  Washington.  "As  secretary  of  the  oldest  and  best  known 
Peace  Society  in  this  country,  he  has  rendered  invaluable  service 
to  this  great  cause.  He  saw  the  vision  of  the  world's  peace  long 
ago  and  consecrated  his  life  to  make  the  vision  actual.  When 
he  began  his  work,  agitation  in  behalf  of  peace  seemed  like  the 
pious  dream  of  sentimentalists,  and  the  movement  was  often 
regarded  as  a  little  cult  nursed  by  cranks.  The  world  is  now  com- 
ing to  see  the  light  which  Dr.  Trueblood  perceived  in  its  first 
glimmerings.  He  will  tell  us  of  'Events  in  Connection  with  the 
Peace  Movement  Since  the  Previous  Congress.' " 

Dr.  Trueblood  delivered  the  following  address: 


TRUEBLOOD  45 

EVENTS  IN  CONNECTION  WITH   THE  PEACE  MOVE- 
MENT SINCE  THE  PREVIOUS  CONGRESS 

BENJAMIN   F.    TRUEBLOOD 

It  is  always  peculiarly  difficult  to  speak  at  the  end  of  a  long 
program.     It  is  particularly  difficult  when  all  that  you  intended 
to  say  has  been  said,  and  a  good  deal  of  it  said  two  or  three  times, 
and  when  most  of  the  people  whom  you  would  like  to  reach  have 
gone  out  of  the  house.     I  hope,  then,  I  have  your  very  sincere 
and   profound   sympathy.     I   suppose   that   you   would  all  like 
to  compromise  with  me  and  have  me  sit  down.     You  will  find  in 
my  paper  at  least  one  merit,   possibly  the  only   one,  and  that 
is  the  merit  of  brevity.     A  good  many  of  our  later  day  peace- 
makers are  apt  to  forget  that  the  peace  movement  has  a  history 
and  is  not  a  thing  of  today.     While  these  distinguished  speakers 
from  the  government,  and  from  our  institutions  of  learning,  and 
from  our  great  journals,  and  Mr.  Carnegie,  were  speaking  this 
afternoon,  I  was  on  the  platform  here  on  which  they  were  stand- 
ing, borne  up  by  the  shoulders  of  the  great  pacifists  of  nearly  a 
century   ago,   I    mean   Noah   Worcester,   Dr.    Channing,   William 
Ladd,  WilKam  Lloyd  Garrison,    Charles  Sumner,   and  Judge  Jay, 
•and — on    the    other   side   of    the   water, — William   Allen,    Joseph 
iSturge,   John   Bright,  Richard   Cobden,  Henry   Richard   and   still 
later  men   like  Frederick  Passy   of  France.      I  saw    these   men 
who  worked  for  the  cause  of  peace  when  it  was  not  fashionable 
to  go  to  gatherings  addressed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  or  the  president  of  anything  else,  who  worked  under  the 
disadvantage  of  having  no  constituency,  and  I  thought  how  much 
more  difficult  the  task  of  these  men  was  than  the  task  of  us  mod- 
ern men,  who  are  building  on  the  past  and  at  present  under  most 
encouraging  conditions. 

This  Third  American  Peace  Conference  with  an  opening  audience, 
such  as  I  have  almost  never  looked  on  before  at  a  peace  gathering, 
is  only  the  top  branch,  or  one  of  the  top  branches  of  a  great  tree 
whose  roots  go  down  deep  into  the  past  century  and  whose  top 
will  reach  into  the  skies.  We  are  not  to  forget  this  if  we  wish  o 
to  appreciate  the  point  we  have  reached. 


46  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

One  of  the  most  encouraging  things  about  the  peace  movement 
at  the  present  time  is  the  fact  that  it  has  grown  too  big  to  be 
summarized  in  a  brief  address. 

I  am  very  much  afraid,  therefore,  that  what  I  shall  present 
will  resemble  very  closely  the  action  of  the  Greek  pedant  who 
carried  about  with  him  a  brick  to  show  what  sort  of  a  house  he 
lived  in. 

At  the  Second  National  Peace  Congress  at  Chicago  two  years 
ago,  we  were  rejoicing  over  the  work  of  the  Second  Hague  Con- 
ference, trying  to  interpret  to  ourselves  the  full  significance  of 
that  great  world  gathering,  the  meaning  of  what  it  did  and  the 
still  greater  meaning  of  what  it  just  failed  to  do.  We  were  also 
trying  to  find  out  what  were  the  next  tasks  to  which  we  should 
devote  ourselves. 

Since  that  time,  the  efforts  of  the  friends  of  peace  have  been 
turned  very  largely  toward  securing  the  completion  of  what  The 
Hague  Conferences  left  well  advanced  but  not  actually  accom- 
plished. What  did  The  Hague  Conferences  do?  What  have  the 
pacifists  done  within  the  past  two  years  toward  further  advance? 
The  answer  to  these  two  questions  will  show  us  the  point  which 
our  movement  has  reached. 

The  results  of  The  Hague  Conferences,  in  briefest  outline,  are 
as  follows: 

1.  The  establishment  of  an  International  Court  of  Arbitration 
for  the  voluntary  use  of  the  nations,  to  which  all  the  govern- 
ments of  the  world  are  parties. 

2.  The  prohibition  of  the  bombardment  from  the  sea  of  unforti- 
fied coast  cities,  towns  and  ports. 

3.  The  extension  and  strengthening  of  the  rights  of  neutrals 
as  against  the  rights  of  belligerents. 

4.  The  prohibition  of  the  attempt  to  collect  contractual  debts 
from  debtor  nations  by  force  until  arbitration  has  first  been  tried 
or  refused,  thus  extending  the  principle  of  obligatory  arbitration 
to  all  that  numerous  class  of  controversies  between  nations 
involving  money  claims. 

5.  The  prohibition  of  the  dropping  of  projectiles  and  explosives 
from  balloons,  thus  practically  neutralizing  the  air. 


TRUEBLOOD  47 

6.  The  prohibition  of  the  laying  of  submarine  mines  so  as 
seriously  to  endanger  neutral  commerce. 

7.  The  most  important  actual  accomplishment  of  the  Second 
Hague  Conference  was  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  periodic 
conferences  and  the  fixing  of  the  date  of  the  Third  Hague  meeting, 
thus  actually  laying  the  foundations  of  a  World  Congress  or 
Parliament.  Though  much  yet  remains  to  be  done,  in  substance 
the  thing  is  done  and  the  world  will  never  go  back  upon  this 
momentous  step  forward. 

What  The  Hague  Conference  of  1907  came  near  doing  but 
just  failed  to  do,  was  the  most  significant  part  of  its  accomplish- 
ments. 

1.  It  voted,  about  six  to  one  of  the  delegations,  in  favor  of  a 
general  treaty  of  obligatory  arbitration  to  be  signed  by  all  the 
nations  in  common,  thus  recording  the  judgment  of  more  than 
five-sixths  of  the  people  of  the  world  in  favor  of  the  substitutes  of 
reason  and  law  for  war  in  the  settlement  of  controversies  between 
nations. 

2.  The  Conference  came  near  putting  all  unoffending  private 
property  at  sea  in  wartime  beyond  the  reach  of  the  ravages  of 
violence  and  failed  in  this  through  the  opposition  of  only  two  or 
three  of  the  great  powers  who,  in  spite  of  the  progress  of  our  time, 
still  persist  in  reserving  to  themselves  the  savage's  right  of  mak- 
ing war  on  private  property  in  order  to  accomplish  their  designs 
against  a  public  enemy. 

3.  It  declared  itself  without  a  dissenting  delegate,  in  favor  of 
the  creation  of  a  regular  International  Court  of  Justice,  with 
judges  always  in  service  and  holding  the  regular  sessions  of  the 
tribunal;  and  it  failed  to  bring  such  a  Court  into  existence  only 
because  of  its  inability  to  agree  upon  a  method  of  selecting  the 
judges  satisfactory  to  the  small  and  the  great  powers  alike. 

4.  The  Conference  pronounced  its  solemn  judgment,  as  the 
Conference  of  1899  had  done,  against  the  present  colossal  arma- 
ments and  urged  upon  the  governments  the  duty  of  making  a 
serious  study  of  the  problem  of  getting  rid  of  the  exhausting 
burdens  laid  by  these  immense  armaments  upon  the  economic 
welfare  and  progress  of  the  world. 


48  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

The  Conference  did  a  number  of  other  important  things,  but 
those  cited  are  the  leading  and  most  constructive  ones. 

Since  1907,  the  friends  of  peace  have  thus  had  their  program 
of  practical  work  laid  out  for  them  by  this  first  great  representa- 
tive gathering  of  substantially  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  For 
the  most  part  they  have  worked  steadily  and  energetically  for 
the  accomplishment  of  these  central  objects.  On  the  side  of 
the  governments,  one  regrets  to  have  to  say  that  action  has  been 
confined,  for  the  most  part,  to  our  own  government.  We  are 
all  very  glad,  of  course,  that  our  national  authorities  at  Washing- 
ton have  taken  the  splendid  lead  which  they  have  taken.  But 
not  very  much  can  be  finally  accomplished  until  a  number  of 
other  important  powers  move  in  the  same  direction,  as  they  are 
certain  to  do,  sooner  or  later,  under  the  stimulus  of  the  example 
of  the  United  States. 

Three  momentous  steps  have  been  taken  at  Washington  since 
the  last  Conference  at  The  Hague  which  have  greatly  impressed 
the  world  and  led  to  the  most  sanguine  hopes  ever  yet  entertained 
of  the  early  establishment  of  such  a  system  of  pacific  adjustment 
of  international  disputes  and  of  world  organization  as  will  result 
in  the  early  realization  of  the  dream  of  the  disappearance  of  war 
and  the  establishment  of  universal  and  permanent  peace.  These 
proposals  have  recently  been  so  much  before  the  public  and  have 
been  so  widely  and  thoroughly  discussed  that  they  only  need 
mentioning:     They  are: 

1.  The  proposition  of  Secretary  Knox  that  the  establishment 
of  a  permanent  International  Court  of  Justice  need  not  wait 
until  the  Third  Hague  Conference,  but  may  be  brought  about 
by  the  investment  of  the  Prize  Court,  agreed  upon  at  The  Hague 
in  1907,  with  the  functions  of  a  regular  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice. 

2.  The  action  of  Congress  last  year  in  authorizing  the  Presi- 
dent to  appoint  a  Commission  to  study  the  problem  of  limitation 
of  armaments  and  other  allied  subjects. 

3.  The  memorable  action  of  President  Taft  in  declaring  him- 
self in  favor  of  the  arbitration  of  all  international  disputes  without 
reservation  of  even  questions  of  vital  interest  and  of  national 
honor,  and  his  more  recent  effort  to  put  this  idea  into  practice  by 


TRUEBLOOD  49 

securing  a  treaty  of  unlimited  arbitration  with  Great  Britain. 
This  latter  action  of  President  Taft  and  the  splendid,  enthu- 
siastic response  made  by  the  British  government  and  people 
through  Sir  Edward  Grey  is  far  and  away  the  most  striking  and 
hope-inspiring  event  in  the  recent  annals  of  the  international 
peace  movement.  All  thoughtful  and  progressive  men,  not  only 
in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  but  in  all  other  countries 
also,  have  become  impressed  with  the  feeling  that  the  moment  is 
one  of  great  solemnity  and  that  extraordinary  developments  in 
the  direction  of  peace  are  soon  to  take  place. 

It  is  the  point  herein  to  call  attention  once  more  to  the  fact  that 
within  the  past  two  years  the  two  great  gifts  of  Edwin  Ginn  and 
Andrew  Carnegie  for  the  promotion  of  the  peace  cause  have  been 
made.  These  munificent  foundations  have  given  assurance  that 
at  last  the  peace  movement,  which  has  so  far  made  its  way  almost 
without  resources,  is  at  last  to  be  adequately  financed. 

On  the  popular  side  of  the  peace  propaganda,  the  efforts  of  the 
pacifists  have  been  directed  with  unwonted  energy,  faith  and 
hopefulness  toward  the  bringing  about  of  the  very  end  which  the 
government  of  our  country  has  so  prominently  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  world.  In  this  direction  there  has  been  a  sudden 
and  enormous  development  of  public  opinion  among  all  classes 
of  society  somewhat  resembling  the  great  physical  upheavals 
of  geological  history.  The  peace  societies  of  the  world,  now 
six  hundred  in  number,  the  international  and  the  national  peace 
congresses,  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  special  organiza- 
tions like  Mohonk,  the  International  Conciliation  Association, 
the  Society  for  the  Judicial  Settlement  of  International  Disputes, 
and  other  like  bodies  have  steadily  thrown  the  weight  of  their 
influence,  some  emphasizing  one  phase  and  some  another,  toward 
the  stronger  and  deeper  development  of  international  goodwill  and 
trust,  toward  the  pacific,  judicial  settlement  of  all  international 
controversies  and  toward  the  earliest  possible  limitation  and  re- 
duction of  the  great  military  and  naval  establishments  of  our 
time.  This  wide-spread  and  increasingly  powerful  movement 
of  public  opinion  upon  these  strategic  points  in  the  conflict  with 
the  savage  and  irrational  system  of  war  which  remains,  in  Mr. 


so  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Carnegie's  vigorous  phraseology  "the  foulest  blot  upon  our 
civilization"  is,  after  all  is  said  and  done,  the  chief  pillar  on  which 
our  movement  rests,  and  on  the  further  development  and  strength- 
ening of  which  we  must  build  our  future  hopes  of  the  speedy  tri- 
umph of  the  cause  in  whose  interests  we  have  gathered  together 
for  this  Congress. 

Following  the  address  of  Dr.  Trueblood,  President  Holt  an- 
nounced that  telegrams  had  been  received  from  various  friends 
of  peace  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  and  that  some  of  those 
telegrams  would  be  read. 

Following  the  reading  of  these,  the  First  Session  of  the  Congress 
adjourned. 


SECOND   SESSION 

At  the  Second  Session  of  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress, 
held  Wednesday  evening,  May  3,  in  McCoy  Hall,  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  President  Ira  Remsen,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  called  the  meeting  to  order,  and  delivered  the  follow- 
ing address: 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  is  my  pleasant  duty  to  welcome  you 
to  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  When  we  learned  last  year 
that  this  Congress  was  to  meet  in  Baltimore,  we  at  once  offered 
the  use  of  our  halls  for  the  purpose  of  the  meeting,  and  we  were 
very  glad  to  have  that  invitation  accepted.  We  should  have 
been  glad,  indeed,  to  have  all  the  meetings  here,  but  plainly  this 
hall  would  not  have  accommodated  the  great  gathering  of  this 
afternoon.  From  this  time  forward  until  the  end  of  the  session, 
unless  something  unexpected  happens,  this  hall  will  be  the  meet- 
ing place  of  the  Congress. 

I  need  not  tell  you  that  we  all  feel  pleased  and  gratified  to  have 
such  a  distinguished  gathering  of  delegates  meeting  in  our  city. 
There  have  been  a  great  many  important  meetings  held  at  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  and  in  this  particular  hall,  but  I 
doubt  if  there  has  ever  been  a  meeting  of  the  same  importance 
with  as  far-reaching  possibilities  as  the  meeting  which  is  now 
assembled  here  or  as  this  Congress  which  is  now  meeting  in  Bal- 
timore. I  am  very  glad  to  have  a  modest  part  in  the  work  of 
this  great  gathering. 

When  the  moving  spirit  of  this  Congress,  Mr.  Theodore  Mar- 
burg, suggested  to  me  that  as  the  meetings  were  to  be  in  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University  for  the  most  part,  it  would  be  appropriate 
that  I  should  preside  at  one  of  the  sessions,  I  must  confess  that 
I  hesitated  very  much,  but  finally  accepted,  for  we  all  felt  that 
anything  Mr.  Marburg  asked  this  week  should  be  granted  for  the 
sake  of  peace. 

SI 


52  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

There  is  one  very  good  reason  why  a  Peace  Congress  should 
meet  in  the  halls  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  or  some  other 
university  or  educational  institution,  for  fundamentally  the  work 
which  these  congresses  are  doing,  which  all  peace  societies  are 
doing,  is  educational  work.  Without  education  in  this  line 
nothing  can  be  accomplished.  The  education  of  young  people 
is  difficult  enough,  as  those  who  have  been  engaged  in  that 
kind  of  work  know  very  well.  But  the  education  of  those  who 
have  passed  the  stage  of  youth  is  a  good  deal  more  difficult, 
and  the  difficulty  increases  as  time  passes.  These  peace  con- 
gresses have  students  who  have  grown  up,  and  whose  minds 
have  become  somewhat  fixed,  who  have  lost  that  plasticity  which 
is  the  first  condition  of  success  in  education.  The  first  and  great 
difficulty  is  to  get  the  attention  of  those  who  are  to  be  educated. 
No  doubt  that  is  the  difficulty  in  all  lines  of  education.  It  is  a 
good  deal  easier  to  get  the  attention  of  young  people  than  of  those 
who  are  not  so  young.  We  can  easily  discuss  that  problem  and 
show  why  it  is  so.  But  I  will  not  change  this  meeting  into  a 
psychological  seminary.  Each  of  us  has  had  some  experience 
in  educating  ourselves  in  connection  with  this  particular  problem 
before  this  Congress. 

I  confess  I  had  difficulty  myself.  It  so  happened  that  in  early 
life  I  was  brought  in  close  relation  with  two  important  wars. 
The  first  was  the  Civil  War,  which  was  during  the  time  that  I 
was  a  boy,  and  the  second,  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  when  I 
was  living  near  the  borders  of  Germany  and  France,  and  the  gen- 
eral impression  which  I  got  was  that  war  was  a  necessity.  I 
recall  an  incident  illustrating  the  conditions  then  existing.  I 
was  living,  after  my  return  from  France  and  Germany,  in  a  very 
quiet  nook  in  New  England.  There  was  there  an  old  clergyman, 
whose  chief  claim  to  distinction  was  that  he  was  a  classmate  of 
David  Dudley  Field.  He  often  told  us  that,  and  frequently 
amused  some  of  us  by  his  references  to  that  fact.  He  came  into 
the  room  one  day  and  said,  "I  have  just  had  a  letter  from  David 
Dudley  Field,  and  what  do  you  think,  they  have  abolished  war." 
That  was  an  announcement  sufficient  to  cause  one  to  think.  It 
seemed  to  me  that  the  problem  these  good  people  were  undertak- 


SECOND    SESSION  53 

ing,  that  of  abolishing  war,  was  perfectly  hopeless.  It  was  almost 
silly  that  they  should  meet  and  talk  over  such  a  problem  as  that. 
All  of  you  who  have  reached  my  age  have  gone  through  such 
experiences,  and  I  dare  say  you  have  often  wondered  with  me 
whether  it  was  worth  while.  It  does  seem  almost  impossible  that 
within  a  period  of  forty  years  there  should  have  been  a  feeling 
that  to  advocate  peace  was  a  perfectly  useless  sentiment. 

What  has  happened  in  the  meantime?  Look  at  that  great 
audience  this  afternoon  and  hear  these  great  speakers,  saying 
with  such  confidence  what  would  happen  in  the  future.  The 
contrast  between  that  and  forty  years  ago  is  as  great  as  can  be 
imagined.  The  cause  has  triumphed,  and  it  is  extremely  grati- 
fying to  those  who,  in  the  early  days,  gave  only  a  weak  adherence 
to  it  and  doubted  its  success.  The  results  are  far  beyond  the 
greatest  expectations  of  the  majority  of  people,  I  should  say,  who 
lived  at  the  time  of  which  I  am  speaking.  They  thought  that  at 
some  time  in  the  dim  future  there  might  be  some  results,  but  now 
we  have  reached  the  stage  where  we  think  war  in  the  future  will 
be  the  exception,  peace  the  rule.  That  is  as  great  a  change  as 
the  world  could  possibly  experience. 

This  has  all  come  about  through  education — no,  not  wholly,  I 
beg  your  pardon;  there  have  been  other  causes.  It  was  not  edu- 
cation that  caused  this  wholly,  but  there  were  other  causes  with 
which  peace  societies  had  nothing  to  do,  causes  which  were  far- 
reaching,  but  I  will  not  go  into  those,  because  there  might  be  some 
disagreement  with  my  views.  I  do  not  believe,  though,  that  the 
peace  societies  have  accomplished  all  this.  The  world  generally 
is  moving  forward,  and  there  are  a  number  of  forces  at  work  which 
have  tended  to  improve  it,  forces  which  are  not  always  of  such  a 
high  character,  but  economic  reasons,  reasons  connected  with 
inventions,  and  other  reasons  which  are  not  operating  in  the  same 
direction,  but  endeavoring  and  helping  to  bring  about  the  result 
which  the  peace  societies  are  aiding  so  materially.  It  has  some- 
times been  said  that  these  reform  movements  of  one  kind  or  an- 
other hasten  the  coming  of  the  inevitable.  That  sounds  a  little 
deep,  perhaps,  but  if  you  will  think  it  over,  it  has  a  meaning.  I 
will  leave  it^with  you  in  that  form.     This  peace  is  coming,  and 


54  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

what  these  societies  do,  these  movements,  these  meetings,  is  to 
hasten  the  coming  of  that  which  will  come  sometime  whether  the 
societies  operate  or  not;  but  in  all  good  causes  societies  play  their 
part,  and  without  them  undoubtedly  progress  would  be  much 
slower  than  it  now  is  or  would  be  without  them. 

It  is  not,  however,  my  purpose  to  address  you  at  any  length. 
I  was  asked  to  preside  at  this  meeting  and  I  rested  calmly  upon 
the  presumption  that  that  was  my  only  function.  When  I  re- 
ceived the  program  I  found  there  was  an  address  called  for,  which 
was  entirely  undesirable  to  the  presiding  officer.  My  duty  is  to 
introduce  the  speakers.  I  find  there  are  five  present  now,  and 
if  we  keep  on  we  may  get  more.  There  are  other  causes  inter- 
fering here  also,  which  have  an  effect  upon  the  prompt  attendance 
of  the  speakers.  But  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  that.  My  duty 
is  to  preside,  whether  there  are  speakers  here  or  not. 

Let  me  introduce  now  Dr.  Charles  F.  Thwing,  President  of  the 
Western  Reserve  University,  who  will  speak  on  the  subject  an- 
nounced in  the  program. 

THE  PEACE  MOVEMENT  AND  THE  AMERICAN 
COLLEGE  AND  UNIVERSITY 

CHARLES   F.    THWING 

Perhaps  the  greatest  service  which  the  American  college  or 
university  can  render  to  the  cause  of  peace  lies  in  the  prosaic 
process  and  the  triumphant  result  of  making  the  thinker.  For 
0"^  the  man  who  thinks  is  the  man  who  by  nature  and  instinct  is 
opposed  to  war.  It  is  as  true  that  the  doors  of  academic  halls 
are  closed  in  times  of  war,  as  it  is  true  that  the  laws  are  silent 
among  arms.  The  college  man  who  thinks,  sees  truth  broadly: 
war  interprets  life  narrowly,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  The 
college  man  who  thinks,  sees  truth  deeply:  war  makes  its  primary 
appeal  to  the  superficial  love  of  glory,  of  pomp  and  of  circumstance. 
The  college  man  who  thinks,  sees  truth  in  its  highest  skyey  rela- 
tions: war  is  hell.  The  college  man  who  thinks  sees  truth  in  long 
ranges  and  in  far  off  horizons:  war  is  emotional,  and  the  warrior 
flings  the  years  into  the  hours.     The  college  man  who  thinks. 


THWING  55 

thinks  accurately,  with  logic,  with  reason:  war  does  not  think, — 
war  strikes.  Strike,  may  also  say  the  college  man,  but  hear,  he 
cries,  yes,  think.  If  the  college  can  make  the  student  think,  it 
has  created  the  greatest  force  for  making  the  world  and  the  age, 
an  age  and  a  world  of  peace.  The  cause  of  peace  can  do  much 
for  the  college  and  the  university.  The  triumph  of  the  cause 
would  put  gold  into  the  academic  chest,  and  gold  is  silent  symbol 
of  what  the  college  stands  for.  To  build  a  battleship  costs  the 
endowment  of  a  university,  and  its  annual  maintenance  is  larger 
than  a  university  budget. 

The  total  cost  of  the  battleship  New  Hampshire  was  more  than 
seven  million  dollars.  The  total  value  of  the  grounds  and  build- 
ings of  all  the  colleges  in  New  Hampshire  is  less  than  two  and  a 
half  million  dollars,  and  the  total  amount  of  productive  funds, 
three  millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Indiana  was  more  than 
five  millions.  The  total  value  of  grounds  and  buildings  of  col- 
leges and  universities  in  Indiana  is  slightly  more  than  seven 
million  dollars,  and  the  productive  funds  are  four  millions.  The 
total  cost  of  the  battleship  Oregon  was  more  than  six  millions.  The 
whole  value  of  grounds  and  buildings  of  the  universities  and  col- 
leges of  Oregon  is  less  than  two  million,  and  the  productive  fund 
amounts  to  less  than  one  million.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Iowa 
was  more  than  five  million  dollars,  and  the  productive  funds  of  all 
its  colleges  and  universities  is  also  five  millions.  The  battleship 
Kentucky  cost  more  than  four  millions.  In  the  colleges  of  that  State 
the  total  amount  of  productive  funds  is  only  two  millions,  and  total 
value  of  grounds  and  buildings,  three  millions.  The  battleship 
Alabama  cost  more  than  four  millions,  and  the  entire  property,  real 
and  personal,  of  all  universities  and  colleges  in  that  State  is  less  than 
four  millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Wisconsin  is  more  than 
four  million  dollars.  The  whole  value  of  all  grounds  and  build- 
ings of  its  colleges  and  universities  is  only  slightly  more  than  six 
millions.  The  battleship  Maine  cost  more  than  four  millions, 
and  the  entire  value  in  grounds,  buildings,  and  productive  funds 
of  the  colleges  and  universities  of  that  State  is  little  more  than 
five  millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Connecticut  was  more 
than  five  million  dollars.     The  total  value  of  grounds  and  build- 


56  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ings  is  slightly  less  than  that  amount.  The  battleship  Kansas 
cost  more  than  seven  million  dollars.  The  value  of  the  grounds 
and  buildings  of  the  colleges  and  universities  of  Kansas  is  less 
than  six  millions,  and  the  productive  funds,  little  more  than  a 
million.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Louisiana  was  more  than  seven 
million  dollars.  The  whole  value  of  the  grounds  and  buildings 
and  the  productive  funds  of  that  State  is  little  more  than  six 
millions.  The  battleship  Minnesota  cost  more  than  seven  mil- 
lions, and  the  total  value  of  grounds  and  buildings  of  its  univer- 
sities and  colleges  is  only  about  five  millions,  and  the  productive 
funds  little  more  than  two  millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship 
Vermont  was  more  than  seven  million  dollars,  and  value  of  the 
property  of  its  colleges  is  scarcely  more  than  two  millions,  and  the 
productive  fund  little  more  than  a  million.  The  battleship 
Georgia  cost  more  than  six  million  dollars,  and  the  total  amount 
of  property  and  productive  funds  of  the  colleges  and  universities 
of  the  State  is  less  than  four  millions.  The  cost  of  the  battle- 
ship Nebraska  was  more  than  six  millions,  and  the  entire  property, 
real  and  personal,  of  the  universities  and  colleges  is  less  than  four 
millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  New  Jersey  was  more  than 
six  million  dollars.  The  total  value  of  the  grounds  and  buildings 
of  the  colleges  and  universities  is  but  little  more  than  two  mil- 
lions. The  cost  of  the  battleship  Rhode  Island  was  more  than  six 
million  dollars.  The  total  value  of  all  the  property  of  its  universities 
and  colleges  is  less  than  six  millions.  The  battleship  Virginia  cost 
over  six  millions  For  education  in  that  State,  and  the  total  produc- 
tive funds  are  but  little  more  than  three  millions.  The  cost  of  the 
battleship  Idaho  was  more  than  five  million  dollars.  The  total 
value  of  the  grounds,  buildings  and  productive  funds  of  the  colleges 
and  universities  of  the  State  is  less  than  one  million.  The  battle- 
ship Mississippi  cost  more  than  seven  millions,  and  the  value  of 
all  property,  real  and  personal,  of  its  universities  is  only  about 
three  millions.  The  battleship  Delaware  cost  more  than  seven 
million  dollars,  while  all  the  productive  funds  of  the  colleges  and 
universities  of  the  State  amount  to  less  than  one  million.  The 
battleship  North  Dakota  cost  over  eight  million  dollars.  The  value 
of  the  grounds  and  buildings  of  the  colleges  and  universities  is 


THWING  .57 

little  more  than  two  millions,  and  the  productive  funds  about  three 
millions.  The  cost  of  the  battleship  Michigan  was  more  than  six 
millions,  while  the  value  of  the  grounds  and  buildings  of  its  uni- 
versities and  colleges  is  less  than  that  sum,  and  the  productive 
funds  little  more  than  three  millions.  The  battleship  South 
Carolina  cost  more  than  six  million  dollars.  The  total  value  of 
all  the  property  of  its  colleges  and  universities  is  little  more  than 
three  millions.  The  cost  of  the  armored  cruiser  Colorado  was  more 
than  five  millions,  and  the  total  value  of  all  property  available 
for  its  colleges  and  universities  is  but  little  over  four  millions.  The 
cost  of  the  armored  cruiser  West  Virginia  was  more  than  five 
million  dollars,  while  the  value  of  all  productive  funds  is  less 
than  two  millions.  The  armored  cruiser  Tennessee  cost  more 
than  six  millions.  The  value  of  all  grounds  and  buildings  is 
slightly  more  than  three  millions.  The  armored  cruiser  Wash- 
ington cost  more  than  six  millions,  while  the  value  of  all  productive 
funds  of  the  colleges  and  universities  is  but  little  over  three 
millions.  The  cost  of  the  armored  cruiser  North  Carolina  was 
more  than  five  millions.  The  total  value  of  all  productive  funds 
of  its  colleges  and  universities  is  about  five  millions.  The  armored 
cruiser  South  Dakota  cost  more  than  five  millions.  The  total 
amount  of  productive  funds  of  the  universities  and  colleges  of 
that  State  is  less  than  two  millions.  The  cost  of  the  armored 
cruiser  Montana  was  more  than  five  millions.  The  total  value 
of  all  property,  real  and  personal,  of  its  colleges  and  universities 
is  less  than  two  million  dollars.  The  cost  of  maintaining  many  of 
these  cruisers,  for  a  year  of  twelve  months,  approaches  a  million 
dollars.  The  cost  of  maintaining  the  Colorado  is  $877,919.57; 
the  Maryland,  $875,425.31;  the  West  Virginia,  $958,997.99; 
the  Tennessee,  $961,370.76;  the  Washington,  $892,870.16;  the 
North  Carolina,  $742,754.50;  the  South  Dakota,  $804,866.67; 
the  Montana,  $750,333.78.  The  number  of  universities  in  this 
country  whose  annual  budget  exceeds  these  sums,  can  be  num- 
bered on  your  fingers.  When  one  takes  into  view  the  deprecia- 
tion which  belongs  to  an  armored  cruiser  or  battleship,  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  it  costs  more  to  maintain  a  battleship  for  one  year 


58  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

than  to  maintain  Yale  College  for  a  year,  and  several  times  what 
it  costs  to  maintain  a  college  like  Amherst  or  Williams. 

Of  the  five  hundred  colleges  and  universities  in  this  country, 
the  value  of  the  grounds  is  estimated  at  $67,000,000,  the  value 
of  buildings,  at  $219,000,000,  and  the  productive  funds  amount 
to  $260,000,000.  Leaving  out  those  battleships  which  are  now 
in  course  of  construction,  the  Utah,  Florida,  Arkansas,  Wyoming, 
New  York  and  Texas,  the  total  cost  of  the  Indiana,  Oregon,  Iowa, 
Kentucky,  Alabama,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Maine,  Missouri,  Con- 
necticut, Kansas,  Louisiana,  Minnesota,  Vermont,  Georgia, 
Nebraska,  New  Jersey,  Rhode  Island,  Virginia,  Idaho,  Mississippi, 
New  Hampshire,  Delaware,  North  Dakota,  South  Carolina,  Colorado, 
Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Tennessee,  Washington,  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Dakota,  and  Montana,  is  $236,551,438.57.  But,  be 
it  also  said,  that  the  cost  of  maintaining  these  battleships  during 
the  fiscal  year  of  19 10,  many  of  which  were  in  commission  but  a 
small  part  of  the  year,  amounted  to  no  less  than  $24,624,739.55. 

The  amount  which  all  the  colleges  and  universities  in  this  country 
received  in  the  year  1909,  in  tuition  fees,  was  only  fourteen  mil- 
lion dollars.  And  the  entire  income  received  both  from  fees  and 
productive  funds  was  only  about  twenty-five  million  dollars. 
In  other  words,  when  one  takes  into  view  the  depreciation  in  the 
battleship  or  armored  cruiser,  the  entire  cost  of  the  thirty-eight  battle- 
ships for  a  single  year,  is  greater  than  the  administration  of  the 
entire  American  system  of  the  higher  education. 

Is  it  not  very  clear  that  the  cause  of  peace  can  do  much  for  the 
college  and  for  the  university,  and  what  is  infinitely  more  impor- 
tant, that  the  cause  of  peace  can  do  much  for  humanity  ?  The 
money  which  is  thus  wasted  on  naval  armament  and  equipment 
would  put  the  cause  of  the  higher  education  of  America  upon  a 
most  eflicient  basis. 

Chairman  Remsen:  The  next  speaker  I  will  call  upon  is  the 
Dean  of  Goucher  College,  Baltimore,  Miss  Eleanor  L,  Lord. 
I  take  pleasure  in  presenting  Miss  Lord,  whose  subject  is 


LORD  59 

WAR  FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  EUGENICS 

ELEANOR   L.    LORD,   PH.D. 

At  the  outset  it  may  be  well  to  explain  that  for  obvious  reasons 
the  present  paper  is  not  an  attempt  to  treat  exhaustively  or  tech- 
nically the  physiological  aspects  of  war.  In  the  first  place,  the 
limit  of  time  would  preclude  any  comprehensive  treatment  of 
the  subject;  and,  in  the  second  place,  a  student  of  history  who 
essayed  to  enter  into  the  details  of  so  highly  specialized  and,  as 
yet,  indeterminate  a  field  as  that  of  heredity  in  the  human  species, 
would  be  guilty  of  an  unwarrantable  incursion  into  the  realm 
of  biological  science. 

I  trust,  however,  that  it  may  be  permitted  to  a  layman,  upon 
whom  those  who  arranged  this  significant  congress  have  conferred 
the  honor  of  a  place  on  the  program,  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  one  aspect  of  warfare  that  has  received  comparatively  little 
attention  on  the  part  of  writers  and  speakers  on  the  peace  move- 
ment. 

My  attention  was  first  called  to  the  connection  between  war 
and  eugenics  by  the  address  of  President  David  Starr  Jordan, 
last  July,  at  the  opening  meeting  of  the  National  Education  Asso- 
ciation at  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  and  by  his  fuller  treat- 
ment of  the  same  theme  in  a  book  entitled.  The  Human  Harvest, 
to  which  my  attention  was  subsequently  directed. 

Briefly  stated.  President  Jordan's  thesis,  repeated  in  various 
forms  in  his  essays  on  war,  is  this:  With  men,  as  with  animals, 
"like  the  seed  is  the  harvest."  Men  have  learned  through  science 
the  art  of  selective  breeding,  upon  which  all  progress  is  condi- 
tioned. Permanent  advance  depends  upon  advance  in  the  type 
of  parenthood,  and  decline  results  solely  from  breeding  from  the 
second-best  instead  of  the  best.  This  is  true  of  races  as  well  as 
cattle.  War  tends  towards  the  elimination  of  the  best  and  there- 
fore towards  the  decline  of  the  race,  since  those  who  are  left 
behind  determine  the  future. 

Eugenics,  both  as  a  field  of  biological  science,  and  as  a  possible 
instrument  of  social  regeneration,  is  still  in  its  infancy,  but  it 
has  taken  sufi&cient  hold  upon  the  trained  imagination  to  warrant 


60  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

serious  consideration  of  the  question  whether  we  are  not  approach- 
ing some  social  questions  from  the  wrong  end;  whether,  for  exam- 
ple, the  advocates  of  the  eradication  of  the  socially  unfit  by 
eliminating  the  conditions  of  environment  which  produce  poverty, 
vice  and  crime  are  not  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse.  Such 
at  least  is  the  view  of  many  biologists  who  hold  that  the  advocates 
of  euthenics,  as  the  theory  of  reform  through  environment  has 
come  to  be  called,  are  seeking  what  is  after  all  likely  to  be  only 
a  palliative;  while  the  eugenists  look  to  the  control  of  heredity 
as  the  ultimate  instrument  of  racial  salvation. 

It  is,  of  course,  an  axiom  of  biology  that  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  results  from  a  process  of  selection  by  which  weak  or  defec- 
tive individuals  give  place  in  the  struggle  for  existence  to  the 
stronger  and  more  resistant.  Natural  selection  may  be  improved 
upon  by  artificial  selection  as  in  the  process  of  cattle-breeding,  or 
by  such  experiments  as  those  of  Burbank  with  plants.  In  any 
case  the  evolution  of  a  higher  type  through  selective  breeding  is 
essentially  a  simple  process  and  obviously  depends  for  ultimate 
success  upon  the  deliberate  mating  of  the  fittest  with  the  fittest, 
and  not  with  the  unfittest,  rather  than  upon  artificial  improve- 
ment of  the  environment.  As  one  writer  has  put  it,  no  amount 
of  fertilization  of  the  soil,  that  is,  improvement  in  environment, 
will  produce  figs  from  thistles. 

But  is  not  the  Darwinian  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest 
in  the  struggle  for  existence  an  excellent  argument  for  the  indirect 
benefits  of  warfare — a  sort  of  consolation  to  the  sentimentalists 
who  deplore  the  destruction  of  human  life  which  war  involves — 
in  that  the  weaker  and  the  unfit  succumb  to  the  strength  of  the 
victors,  who  thus  prove  themselves  worthy  to  replace  the  degen- 
erate races  and  so  check  the  decline  of  civilization  corrupted  by 
luxury  and  vice?  It  has  even  been  argued  that  in  primitive  tribal 
warfare^  the  victors  married  the  women  of  the  defeated  tribe  and 
so  effected  a  cross-breeding  favorable  to  the  race.  A  moment's 
reflection  will  show,  I  think,  that  this  is  by  no  means  a  usual 
occurrence,  since,  the  fiercer  the  struggle,  the  more  recklessly  do 
the  picked  warriors  rush  into  the  thick  of  the  fray  and  engage  in 
hand-to-hand  encounter  with  the  champions  of  the  enemy.     One 


LORD  6 I 

has  only  to  read  the  Iliad  or  certain  passages  of  the  Nibelungen- 
lied  to  realize  that  primitive  warfare  is  virtually  a  species  of  duel- 
ling in  which  pairs  of  warriors,  more  or  less  equally  matched, 
struggle  on  till  either  the  accidents  of  war  or  some  momentary 
unguardedness  lays  low  not  alone  the  weakling  but  the  glorious 
hero.  In  fact  it  is  the  weaker  and  the  less  heroic  who  most 
frequently  survive  in  that  type  of  encounter,  since,  when  the  most 
valiant  who  led  the  charge  in  the  vanguard  have  fallen,  the  less 
daring  are  prone  to  retreat  if  opportunity  offers.  Often  nearly 
as  many  of  the  victorious  party  are  killed  as  of  the  conquered. 
History  records  many  victories  that  proved  frightfully  expensive 
when  the  roll-call  of  the  survivors  revealed  the  true  results. 

The  postulate  that  warfare  results  in  the  survival  of  the  unfit- 
test  rests,  however,  not  so  much  upon  the  effects  of  the  fighting 
itself,  whether  by  modern  or  ancient  methods  of  procedure,  but 
rather  upon  the  operation  of  the  system  of  recruiting  armies,  by 
which  the  best  physical  specimens  of  the  nations  are  carefully 
selected  to  be  for  a  very  brief  hour  the  nation's  pride,  the  flower 
of  chivalry,  and  then,  too  often  to  become  "food  for  cannon." 

With  a  view  to  high  eflEiciency  in  fighting  and  endurance  of  the 
hardships  and  exposure  incident  to  military  campaigns,  all  govern- 
ments have  pursued  the  policy  of  recruiting  their  armies  from  the 
best  available  material.  Young  men  in  the  plenitude  of  their 
powers  have  been  singled  out  for  long  terms  of  service  sometimes 
from  seventeen  to  fifty  years  of  age,  leaving  the  very  immature, 
the  defective  and  the  older  men  at  home  to  be  the  propagators 
of  succeeding  generations.  As  early  as  the  regal  period  the 
Roman  army  was  classified  as  Juniors  and  Seniors,  the  Juniors, 
I.e.,  the  fittest,  being  detailed  for  the  more  active  service,  where 
the  chances  of  survival  were  least  good.  In  the  earlier  wars 
Rome  never  allowed  the  slaves  and  inferior  citizens  to  serve  in  the 
army.  The  word  legion  is  derived  from  legere,  to  select.  The 
wars  for  the  possession  of  Italy  and  the  Punic  wars  were  fought 
by  the  pick  of  the  Italian  stock;  but  as  the  fighting  force  became 
depleted  by  expensive  victories  the  recruits  were  drawn  more  and 
more  from  the  lower  classes  or,  when  war  became  distasteful  to 
he  citizens,  from  alien  races.     Mommsen  estimates  that  three 


62  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

hundred  thousand  Italians,  chiefly  Romans  of  the  best  stock, 
perished  in  the  Punic  wars,  and  at  least  four  hundred  townships 
were  destroyed.  It  became  necessary  to  fill  up  a  gap  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-seven  in  the  membership  of  the  Senate.  Pro- 
fessor Seeley,  in  his  study  of  Roman  imperialism,  states  positively 
that  "whatever  the  remote  and  ultimate  cause  may  have  been, 
the  immediate  cause  to  which  the  fall  of  the  empire  can  be  traced 
is  a  physical,  not  a  moral,  decay.  In  valor,  discipline  and  science 
the  Roman  armies  remained  what  they  always  had  been;  but  the 
problem  was  how  to  replenish  those  armies.  Men  were  wanting; 
the  empire  perished  for  want  of  men." 

Rome  could  replenish  her  armies  from  the  barbarians,  but  was 
destined  in  the  end  to  perish  by  those  same  barbarian  hordes — 
an  excellent  illustration  of  the  law  of  diminishing  returns. 

It  is  not  merely  in  the  waste  of  the  choicest  specimens  of  a 
nation's  manhood  in  aggressive  war  that  the  parenthood  of  the 
next  generation  is  vitiated,  but  also  in  civil  wars  and  revolutions 
in  which  unscrupulous  usurpers  or  hostile  factions  seek  to 
strengthen  their  own  position  by  the  destruction  of  their  able- 
bodied  or  able-minded  rivals. 

Dr.  Otto  Seeck,  in  his  philosophical  history  of  the  downfall  of  the 
ancient  world,  has  a  most  illuminating  chapter  on  Die  Ausrot- 
tung  der  Besten,  The  Rooting  out  of  the  Best,  in  which  he  relates 
the  anecdote  of  Periander  of  Corinth  who  sent  to  Thrasybulus  of 
Melos  and  asked  his  advice  as  to  how  to  strengthen  his  power. 
The  latter  conducted  the  messenger  to  a  field  and  cut  off  the  ears 
of  corn  that  reached  above  their  fellows  and  threw  them  to  the 
ground  until  the  finest  ornament  of  the  field  was  ruined.  Peri- 
ander understood  the  parable  and  had  all  the  leading  citizens 
executed  or  banished.  Many  other  Greek  tyrants  followed  this 
plan  of  getting  rid  of  the  strong,  and  not  merely  the  fathers  but 
the  sons  who  might  wreak  vengence  upon  their  father's  enemy. 
This  destruction  of  the  aristoi,  i.e.,  the  best,  killed  off  thousands 
of  the  pick  of  the  Greek  race  who  might  have  become  the  parents 
of  strong  sons. 

The  same  method  was  pursued  by  Marius  and  Sulla  and  by 
the  Triumvirs  of  Rome  without  any  thought  of  what  the  results 


LORD  63 

might  be  for  the  future  breed  of  Romans.  No  wonder  Sulla 
found  the  Roman  Senate  unfit  to  save  the  state  as  he  had  fondly 
dreamed.  The  calibre  of  the  senatorial  families  had  been  re- 
duced physically  and  mentally  by  the  frightful  proscription  of 
Marius,  which  is  estimated  at  ninety  senators  and  two  thousand 
six  hundred  knights.  The  second  triumvirate,  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  the  few  men  of  energy  and  capacity  still  remaining  in  Italy 
among  their  political  opponents,  says  the  historian  Ferrero,  con- 
demned to  death  and  confiscated  the  property  of  one  hundred 
senators  and  two  thousand  knights.  And  he  adds:  "The  gen- 
eration of  Octavian  was  far  weaker  than  the  men  of  Caesar's  day 
in  its  fear  of  death  and  poverty,  and  it  displayed  a  correspond- 
ing timidity  and  cowardice." 

We  have  no  reliable  statistics  of  the  mortality  due  to  warfare 
in  the  middle  ages,  but  the  selective  grading  of  feudal  society  and 
the  incentives  to  rivalry  in  reckless  exposure  in  the  hand-to-hand 
encounters  of  the  age  of  chivalry  suggest  that  war  by  no  means 
tended  to  secure  the  survival  of  the  fittest  elements  for  parent- 
hood. It  is  necessarily  impossible  to  distinguish  definitely  be- 
tween the  physically  and  the  morally  fit,  since  the  two  classes  are 
not  invariably  identical;  nor  is  it  true  that  the  so-called  aristocra- 
cies of  the  nations  are  always  more  fit  than  the  middle  classes  to 
rear  the  generations  of  the  future.  Yet  one  cannot  avoid  the 
feeling  that  the  loss  of  so  many  noble  and  high  minded  men  and 
women  by  the  guillotine  in  the  Reign  of  Terror  seriously  afifected 
the  succeeding  generations  of  Frenchmen. 

In  Germany  during  the  wars  of  religion  the  loss  by  war  is  esti- 
mated at  six  million  lives,  and  while  historical  writers  dwell  on 
the  fact  that,  economically  speaking,  the  progress  of  Germany 
was  crippled  for  over  a  century,  who  shall  say  that  the  dynamic 
power  of  the  Germans,  from  the  physical  standpoint,  was  not 
similarly  paralyzed  or  atrophied? 

Proscription  by  triumphant  usurpers  and  wholesale  massacre 
of  the  leading  citizens  of  beleaguered  towns  which  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy  have  passed  out  of  fashion,  most  fortunately, 
but  the  casualties  of  regular  field  engagements  are  sufficiently 
appalling  to  give  us  pause.     It  is  claimed  that  three  million  were 


64  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

killed  in  the  Napoleonic  wars — the  choicest  manhood  of  France 
between  eighteen  and  thirty-five  years  of  age.  The  Grand  Army, 
computed  at  six  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  was  probably  the 
largest  army  ever  mustered  since  the  time  of  Xerxes,  but  it  had 
already  become  necessary  to  fill  up  the  ranks  with  striplings 
under  age  and  with  older  men  less  capable  of  endurance.  The 
ghastly  Russian  campaign  devoured  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  youths  under  twenty  years  of  age.  Professor  Seeck 
confidently  attributes  the  subsequent  decadence  of  the  French 
physique  and  the  decrease  in  stature  of  the  modern  Frenchmen 
to  this  wholesale  elimination  of  the  finest  physical  specimens  of 
the  nation. 

If  any  phase  of  this  subject  can  be  regarded  as  humorous,  the 
spectacle  of  Frederick  WilHam  of  Prussia  proudly  drilling  his 
giant  grenadiers,  his  "dear  blue  children,"  might  at  this  histor- 
ical distance  provoke  a  smile;  but  the  new  scheme  for  compul- 
sory service  instituted  in  1733  was  no  joke  to  the  subjects  of  the 
royal  drill  master.  The  nobles  resisted  the  proscription  not  only 
because  it  withdrew  serfs  from  the  fields,  but  because  their  own 
sons  were  gathered  into  the  training  school  at  Berlin.  Many 
parents  in  their  despair  tried  to  prove  that  they  were  not  noble. 
Had  it  not  been  for  the  motive  which  called  forth  his  ingenuity, 
Frederick  William  might  almost  be  claimed  as  one  of  the  early 
advocates  of  eugenics,  since  he  seriously  undertook  to  influence 
the  propagation  of  heroic  specimens  by  forcing  marriages  between 
tall  men  and  women  who  had  never  seen  each  other  until  ordered 
to  the  altar. 

But  what  is  the  use  in  harking  back  to  the  barbaric  past  or 
even  to  the  eighteenth  century,  says  the  military  expert,  when  the 
conditions  of  warfare  were  fundamentally  different  from  those 
of  the  present  day?  Civilized  nations  no  longer  plunge  reck- 
lessly into  wars  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  the  lands  or  movable 
wealth  of  their  neighbors;  nor  do  they  any  longer  raze  flourishing 
cities  to  the  ground  and  massacre  or  enslave  the  inhabitants. 
Standing  armies  are  now  maintained  in  order  to  prevent  war  and 
its  evil  consequences. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  at  present  comparatively  little  induce- 


LORD  65 

ment  for  European  states  to  engage  in  aggressive  wars  for  ter- 
ritorial expansion;  that  there  are  no  longer  vast  treasure  houses 
of  unutilized  capital  to  tempt  the  covetous;  that  the  wealth  of 
nations  can  be  made  available  through  trade  and  peaceable  com- 
petition; that  slavery  is  no  longer  regarded  as  a  legitimate  or 
desirable  method  of  increasing  the  man-power  of  a  country. 

It  is  also  true  that  there  has  been  a  marked  improvement  in 
the  psychological  incentives  to  war.  Revenge,  greed  in  its 
grosser  forms,  lust  for  power,  religious  fanaticism  have  given 
place  to  what  one  might  call  low  temperature  stimuli,  and  the 
brutalities  of  the  blood-feud  and  even  the  duel  of  honor  have 
yielded  to  more  rational  methods  of  deciding  issues  between  indi- 
viduals. But  has  not  this  progressive  refinement  of  civilization 
respecting  the  provocation  of  war  quite  out-distanced  the  evo- 
lution of  ways  and  means  of  adjudicating  the  claims  of  rival 
nations? 

Reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  war  is  collective  murder.  The 
purpose  of  a  battle,  whether  in  the  open  field,  in  siege  operations 
or  upon  the  sea,  is  to  seize  a  strategic  position  by  killing  off  its 
defenders  in  sufficient  numbers  to  ensure  abandonment  of  the 
position.  When,  after  a  series  of  such  progressive  moves,  all 
the  points  of  defence  have  been  won  and  the  defenders  numeri- 
cally reduced  beyond  the  danger  of  recovery,  the  aggressor  is 
enabled  to  control  the  situation  either  by  demanding  whatever 
he  likes  as  a  price  of  surrender  or  by  violently  seizing  all  the 
material  resources  of  the  enemy  and  effecting  a  complete  paralysis 
of  national  vitality.  From  antiquity  to  modern  times,  from  sav- 
agery to  civilization,  the  evolution  of  warfare  has  meant  the  serious 
business  of  inventing  means  to  destroy  the  greatest  possible  num- 
bers of  the  enemy  in  order  to  bring  the  remnant  to  terms.  The 
ethnological  museums  and  the  art  galleries  of  the  civilized  world 
are  full  of  specimens  of  life-destroyers  ranging  from  the  barbed 
arrow  and  the  tomahawk,  to  the  lyddite  shell. 

One  would  at  least  be  glad  to  felicitate  modern  civilization 
upon  the  disappearance  of  much  of  the  ferocity  of  ancient  warfare 
with  the  substitution  of  long-range  fighting  for  the  hand-to-hand 
encounter  which  brought  human  beings  inflamed  with  the  lust 


66  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  conflict  face  to  face  in  a  life  and  death  struggle.  The  range 
of  the  modern  rifle  is  from  two  to  three  miles,  and  that  of  a  tor- 
pedo fifteen  to  twenty  miles.  A  five-miUimetre  Mansen  rifle, 
we  are  informed,  will  penetrate  five  carcasses  of  horses,  used  for 
experiment,  at  twenty-seven  yards,  or  one  carcass  at  one  thousand, 
eight  hundred  and  seventy  yards.  All  this  remoteness  tends  to 
a  more  impersonal  attitude  towards  the  business  in  hand  and 
makes  its  deliberation  more  cold-blooded;  but  whatever  may  be 
the  gain  through  the  restraint  of  passion  in  the  individual  sol- 
dier, the  nervous  tension  of  modern  warfare  is  immensely 
increased  and  this  contributes  materially  to  physical  break-down. 
Modern  shells,  filled  with  strong  explosives  like  melinite  and  per- 
oxylene,  tend  to  explode  prematurely  and  must  be  handled  with 
extreme  caution.  Smokeless  powder  and  the  practically  noise- 
less discharge  of  the  weapon  signify  that  death  comes  invisibly, 
inaudibly,  unheralded;  so  that,  along  with  the  improvements  in 
the  efficiency  of  weapons,  there  has  been  an  equally  deplorable 
progress  in  devices  for  deceiving  the  enemy  and  catching  him 
unawares — a  ghastly  contribution  to  the  possibilities  of  destruc- 
tion on  a  gigantic  scale.  Smokeless  powder,  mines,  long  distance 
explosives,  the  high-speed  turbine  engine,  wireless  telegraphy, 
and  aerial  navigation  furnish  ample  illustration  of  the  con- 
trasts between  primitive  and  up-to-date  warfare.  Through 
improvements  in  sighting  apparatus  accuracy  of  fire  has  been 
greatly  increased  and  the  bullet  of  the  modern  small  calibre 
rifle  has  such  a  momentum  that  it  will  penetrate  earthworks  78^ 
inches  thick  and  pierce  through  a  tree;  or  it  may  penetrate  even 
the  third  rank  of  soldiers.  The  rapidity  of  revolution  and  the 
deformation  of  bullets  in  contact  with  a  hard  substance  increase 
the  seriousness  and  fatality  of  wounds.  Thus  the  field  of  death 
has  become  incredibly  enlarged.  I  need  not  dwell  further  upon 
the  sickening  details  of  similar  so-called  "improvements"  in  the 
projectiles  used  in  the  modern  battleship  and  in  artillery  field 
pieces.  An  estimate  made  over  ten  years  ago  that  in  a  two- 
days'  battle  the  armies  of  the  Triple  Alliance  and  the  Dual  Alliance 
could  kill  forty-one  million  men  with  five  hundred  rounds  of 
ammunition  per  gun,  i.e.,  could  destroy  more  armies  than  could 


LORD  67 

be  put  in  the  field,  is  to  such  an  extent  a  reductio  ad  ahsurdum 
that  the  tension  of  one's  horror  is  almost  relieved. 

Early  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  humanist  Erasmus  wrote 
to  the  Abbot  of  St.  Bertin, — "The  brute  beasts  fight  with  their 
natural  arms,  not,  like  us,  with  machines  upon  which  we  spend 
an  ingenuity  worthy  of  devils."  The  twentieth  century  also  is 
confronted  with  the  paradox  that  more  time,  money  and  intelli- 
gence have  been  concentrated  upon  military  apparatus  for  the 
destruction  or  mutilation  of  human  beings  than  upon  appliances 
for  the  prolongation  or  the  comfort  of  existence.  As  Mr.  H.  G. 
Wells  has  recently  pointed  out,  "the  house  of  today  is  still  almost 
as  ill-ventilated,  badly  heated,  clumsily  arranged  and  furnished 
as  the  house  of  1858,  but  the  rifle  or  battleship  of  fifty  years  ago 
was  beyond  all  comparison  inferior  to  those  we  possess,  in  power, 
in  speed,  in  convenience  alike.  No  one  has  a  use  now  for  such 
superannuated   things." 

Even  the  professional  soldiers  and  the  war-lords  of  the  present 
era  stand  aghast  at  the  possibilities  of  slaughter,  should  a  serious 
war  break  out  in  Europe.  The  thought  of  twelve  million  men, 
armed  with  the  most  powerful  engines  of  destruction  ever  devised, 
hurled  at  each  other  in  a  titanic  struggle  ought  to  be  sufficient 
to  prevent  any  government  from  turning  loose  the  dogs  of  war 
save  as  a  last  resort.  Napoleon  himself  once  declared  that  war 
was  the  trade  of  barbarians,  and  Wellington  wrote  to  Lord  Shafts- 
bury:  "If  you  had  seen  but  one  day  of  war,  you  would  pray  to 
God  you  might  not  need  to  see  another."  General  Sherman  in  a 
moment  of  revulsion  from  the  horrors  of  war  exclaimed:  "It 
is  only  those  who  never  fired  a  shot  nor  heard  the  shrieks  of  the 
wounded,  who  cry  aloud  for  more  blood,  more  vengeance,  more 
desolation!     War  is  Hell!" 

The  captains  of  industry  and  the  political  economists  thoroughly 
appreciate  the  disturbances  of  commerce,  finance  and  other  eco- 
nomic conditions  involved  in  the  outbreak  of  a  war.  Conse- 
quently the  war  situation  today  presents  itself  as  a  supreme  effort 
to  maintain  an  equilibrium;  to  avoid  war  by  the  maintenance  of 
navies  and  standing  armies  and,  finally,  by  the  balancing  of 
armaments  through  triple  or  dual  alliances  of  those  powers  which 


68  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

are  likely  to  stand  together  on  the  issues  of  war  but  which  are  too 
weak  in  armies  or  fleets  to  engage  single-handed  against  their 
more  formidable  neighbors. 

The  maintenance  of  these  huge  armaments  at  enormous  ex- 
pense implies  the  deep  rooted  conviction  that  war  is  the  inevitable 
solution  of  international  quarrels.  In  times  of  general  security 
when  there  is  no  occasion  for  jingoism  or  for  the  appeal  to  false 
patriotism  by  a  sensational  press,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to 
arouse  the  public  to  a  realization  of  the  horrors  and  the  folly  of 
war;  but  it  is  a  very  different  matter  to  persuade  military  enthu- 
siasts on  the  one  hand  and  government  officials  on  the  other  that 
the  solution  of  the  problem  of  avoiding  war  does  not  lie  in  the 
establishment  of  a  large  army  or  navy  either  by  voluntary  enlist- 
ment or  by  conscription.  At  all  events,  disarmament,  partial 
or  complete,  appears  to  them  the  delusive  dream  of  the  idealist 
who  has  theories  but  no  appreciation  of  the  practical  difficulties 
involved;  the  standing  army  is  a  deplorable  but  inevitable  neces- 
sity. 

Hence,  in  addition  to  the  atrocities  of  actual  warfare,  we  have 
a  second  aspect  of  militarism  to  consider:  the  evils  of  the  main- 
tenance of  a  standing  army  during  the  inactivity  of  intervals  of 
peace. 

The  "national  army"  system  presents  several  features  that 
bear  upon  the  question  of  race  culture.  In  the  first  place,  there 
is  the  recruiting  system  which  withdraws  the  most  perfect  speci- 
mens of  manhood  from  productive  labor  and  family  life  to  the 
military  service  of  the  state.  Vegetius,  a  Roman  military  writer 
of  the  fifth  century,  advocated  the  most  careful  choice  and  train- 
ing of  soldiers  on  the  ground  that  not  only  upon  physical  but 
moral  superiority  must  Rome  depend  for  the  restoration  of  her 
military  power — Non  tarn  prodest  muUitudo  quam  virtus.  Modern 
nations  emphasize  physical  perfection  on  the  whole  more  than 
moral  qualities,  doubtless  on  the  assumption  that  the  service 
requires  perfect  physical  machines.  In  so  far  as  intemperance 
or  criminal  propensities  impair  the  fighting  power  or  the  morale 
(which  is  not  synonymous  with  morality)  of  the  army,  inebriates 
and  ex-convicts  are  rejected. 


LORD  69 

I  have  carefully  read  the  circular  issued  by  the  United  States 
government  relating  to  the  enlistment  of  men  for  the  navy,  which 
may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  qualifications  of  most  modern 
nations  whether  enlistment  is  voluntary  or  compulsory. 

The  age  limit  is  eighteen  to  thirty- five  years,  i.e.,  the  period 
of  greatest  physical  perfection.  A  carefully  graded  standard  of 
weight,  height  and  chest  measure  has  been  prepared  for  the  guid- 
ance of  examiners.  Physical  disqualifications  are  grouped  under 
three  heads:  (i)  feeble  constitution,  general  poor  physique,  or 
impaired  health;  (2)  any  disease  or  deformity  that  would  impair 
eflaciency;  (3)  any  acute  disease. 

So  thorough-going  is  the  examination  that  among  the  list  of 
physical  disqualifications  mentioned  above  are  such  defects  as 
color  blindness,  catarrh,  impediment  of  speech,  corns,  unsound 
teeth,  twenty  sound  or  properly  filled  teeth  being  required.  Were 
the  list  of  forty  or  more  disqualifying  diseases  or  imperfections 
of  more  serious  character  made  to  apply  to  the  eligibility  of  can- 
didates for  marriage  and  parenthood  instead  of  to  men  withdrawn 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  from  the  possibility  of  marriage  at  the 
age  of  maximum  physical  perfection,  what  might  not  be  the  effects 
upon  the  character  of  our  population,  and  upon  the  graver  prob- 
lem of  the  care  and  support  of  the  insane,  and  of  the  defective  and 
delinquent  classes, — at  present  an  enormous  burden  to  the  state. 

In  the  corresponding  circular  for  army  recruits,  number  69, 
are  to  be  found  the  following  significant  paragraphs:  "Married 
men  will  be  enlisted  only  upon  the  approval  of  a  regimental  com- 
mander, or  other  proper  commanding  officer  if  for  other  than  a  regi- 
mental organization."  Again, "  A  favorable  opportunity  is  afforded 
for  active,  intelligent  young  men  of  temperate  habits,  who  may 
enlist  as  privates  and  develop  the  necessary  qualifications,  to 
secure  promotions  to  the  grade  of  a  non-commissioned  officer. 
Unmarried  soldiers  under  thirty-five  years  of  age,  who  are  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  who  are  physically  sound,  who  have  served  hon- 
orably not  less  than  two  years  in  the  army,  and  who  have  home  a 
good  moral  character  before  and  after  enlistment,  are  permitted  to 
compete  by  examination  for  promotion  to  the  rank  of  second  lieu- 
tenant." 


70  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Do  these  regulations  suggest  selective  breeding  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  population,  or  what  President  Jordan  has  significantly 
designated  as  reversed  selection  pointing  to  the  survival  of  the 
unfit? 

Another  feature  of  the  standing  army  system  is  the  education 
of  the  prospective  soldier  or  marine  in  training  schools.  It  is 
on  this  matter  of  education  that  defenders  of  the  military  system 
and  compulsory  service  base  their  strongest  claim  for  the  advan- 
tages of  military  training  and  the  barracks  system;  and  they  most 
reproachfully  accuse  the  advocates  of  peace  of  unfairness  and 
ignorance  of  the  actual  conditions  of  military  life. 

Karl  Berthing,  in  an  article  written  for  the  Outlook  a  few  years 
ago  in  defense  of  Professor  Miinsterberg's  assertion  that  con- 
scription is  not  a  burden  to  the  German  nation,  dwells  with  pride 
upon  the  broad  educational  training  afforded  by  the  military 
school.  It  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  mechanical  drill,  it  seems,  but 
instruction  about  the  history  of  Germany,  her  resources,  her 
colonies,  etc.,  and  that  actually  at  the  hands  of  college  bred  men! 
He  also  says  that  the  best  practical  training  of  individual  talent 
is  afforded  and  that  commercial  houses  are  constantly  advertis- 
ing for  men  who  have  "served." 

Much  is  made,  also,  of  the  superior  athletic  training.  "Mili- 
tary life  takes  the  place  of  athletics  and  encourages  clean  games," 
it  is  claimed.  So  far  as  my  limited  observation  goes,  the  games 
of  naval  and  military  academies  are  encouraged  rather  for  the 
purpose  of  offering  inducements  to  enter  the  schools  and  of  pro- 
viding the  sort  of  relaxation  or  sport  furnished  by  rival  educational 
institutions;  and  as  far  as  the  efficacy  of  the  setting-up-drill  is  con- 
cerned, I  have  seen  it  performed  with  equal  proficiency  and  ap- 
parent benefit  in  collegiate  and  public  gymnasiums.  It  would 
seem  a  somewhat  unwarrantable  expense  for  a  government  to 
maintain  elaborate  equipment  for  gymnastics  or  athletic  contests 
if  this  phase  of  the  military  regime  were  really  worthy  of  serious 
consideration.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  practice  of  athletics  and 
sports  appears  to  be  in  inverse  ratio  to  militarism.  A  comparison 
between  England  or  America,  with  Russia,  Austria  and  other 


LORD  71 

European  nations  among  which  compulsory  military  service 
prevails  will  throw  some  light  upon  that  aspect  of  the  case. 

If  it  could  be  justly  claimed,  however,  that  the  alleged  physical 
benefits  of  military  education  tended  to  eliminate  disease  or  to 
raise  appreciably  the  physical  standard,  there  might  be  some  real 
justification  for  the  military  school  on  the  ground  of  race  im- 
provement, so  far  as  those  are  concerned  who  return  to  the  life 
of  the  civilian  after  the  expiration  of  their  terms  of  service.  James 
Anson  Farrer  arguing  against  the  proposed  introduction  of  com- 
pulsory service  in  Great  Britain,  takes  Switzerland  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  results  of  military  training  on  the  physique.  The 
Swiss  conscript  begins  his  military  education  at  ten  years  of  age, 
and  at  twenty  he  reports  to  the  recruiting  board  for  examination: 
defective  men  are  rejected.  After  all  this  systematic  training 
and  with  the  presumption  of  a  good  record  of  heredity,  42  per 
cent  fail  to  pass  muster  on  account  of  bad  eyesight  or  disease. 
The  ofl&cial  report  of  the  German  war  office  for  1903  is  quoted 
for  the  statement  that  46  per  cent  of  German  recruits  are  rejected 
as  physically  unfit — this  after  compulsory  training  for  a  period 
of  one  hundred  years.  Such  testimony,  superficial  as  it  undoubt- 
edly is,  points  quite  clearly  to  the  fact  that  the  military  regime 
has  not  succeeded  conspicuously  in  preventing  disease  or  improv- 
ing the  physique  of  the  recruit. 

As  to  morals,  the  testimony  is  contradictory.  One  French 
author  says  that  compulsory  service  far  from  being  a  school  for 
morals,  as  is  sometimes  asserted,  is  a  school  for  drunkenness, 
idleness  and  debauchery.  A  French  preacher  is  quoted  by  Farrer 
as  saying:  "The  family  gives  to  the  army  a  young  man  clean  in 
mind  and  body:  the  army  gives  back  that  same  young  man  steeped 
to  the  very  lips  in  debauchery,  suffering  from  disease  and  degrad- 
ing vices."  A  professor  atLeland  Stanford  University,  who  served 
about  ten  months  in  France,  his  native  country,  describes  in  the 
Popular  Science  Monthly  for  April,  191 1,  his  experience  at  Le 
Havre,  where  he,  a  widow's  only  son,  strictly  reared,  first  came 
into  contact  with  the  gross  immorality  of  a  barracks  town.  The 
first  instructions  given  out  by  the  officer  in  charge  on  the  day  after 


72  THIRD    AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

his  arrival,  gave  him  a  shock  from  which,  he  says,  he  was  long  in 
recovering. 

In  the  recent  Harden  libel  case  in  Germany,  the  leader  of  the 
Catholic  Centre  is  reported  to  have  declared  in  the  Reichstag  that 
"the  trial  had  revealed  a  state  of  things  within  and  without  the 
barracks  that  recalled  the  conditions  in  the  heathen  Rome  of  an- 
cient days." 

The  illustrated  pamphlet  entitled,  The  Making  of  a  Man-o'- 
Warsman  issued  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Navigation  with 
a  view  to  alluring  recruits  by  its  graphic  portrayal  of  the  fascina- 
tion of  the  life  of  Uncle  Sam's  sailors,  emphatically  denies  that 
the  prevailing  opinion  that  blue- jackets  are  of  loose  moral  char- 
acter has  any  foundation.  Doubtless  much  of  the  wholesale 
denunciation  of  the  military  service  from  the  point  of  view  of 
morality  is  exaggerated,  and  yet  one  must  bear  in  mind  that  stand- 
ards vary  and  that  we  are  confronted  today  by  an  aspect  of  mo- 
rality that  formerly  escaped  public  notice,  partly  because  of  a 
false  or  at  least  a  mistaken  conception  of  duty,  and  partly  because 
it  was  regarded  purely  as  a  moral  problem. 

The  recent  activities  of  the  medical  profession  and  of  other 
agencies  interested  in  the  propagation  of  the  new  gospel  of  sani- 
tary and  moral  prophylaxis,  seem  destined  to  revolutionize  pre- 
vious notions  as  to  the  dangers  to  society,  present  and  future, 
from  the  alarming  results  of  the  social  vices  upon  the  health  and 
productivity  as  well  as  upon  the  morality  of  the  human  race. 
It  will  not  be  necessary  on  this  occasion  to  discuss  in  detail  the 
bearing  of  this  grave  question  upon  the  conditions  of  barracks 
life,  especially  in  countries  where  large  numbers  of  conscripts  are 
segregated  in  one  sense,  but  in  another  sense  especially  exposed 
to  all  forms  of  intemperance. 

If  we  accept  Francis  Galton's  definition  of  Eugenics  as  "the 
science  which  deals  with  all  the  influences  that  improve  the 
inborn  qualities  of  a  race,"  we  may  logically  include  within  the 
scope  of  its  application  the  effort  to  reduce  the  standing  army  and 
do  away  with  compulsory  military  service,  thereby  limiting  disease 
and  mortality  among  the  best  specimens  of  manhood  and  calling 
a  halt  in  that  process  of  reversed  selection  which  sets  apart  the 


LORD  73 

fittest  for  training  in  legalized  murder  or,  it  may  be,  for  untimely 
death,  while  the  less  fit  are  excused  from  the  dangers  and  dis- 
advantages of  military  service  and  left  to  pursue  the  economically 
productive  callings  and  to  propagate  their  kind. 

But  the  military  enthusiast  will  object  that  the  career  of  the 
soldier  is  full  of  compensations  and  attractions  and  that  the  per- 
centage of  withdrawals  from  productive  labor  is  very  small  and 
the  time  of  service  very  limited;  while  the  possibilities  of  death 
in  actual  service  are  almost  negligible  in  this  era  of  armed  peace. 
It  is  true  that  the  glamor  of  the  soldier's  life  is  still  potent.  Gor- 
geous uniforms,  waving  plumes,  inspiring  martial  music  and  the 
gay  nonchalance  of  Tommy  Atkins  on  parade,  stir  the  blood  of 
young  and  old  of  both  sexes;  nevertheless,  in  spite  of  all  the  induce- 
ments offered  by  governments  to  secure  voluntary  enlistment, 
the  profession  has  undoubtedly  become  unpopular  with  the  better 
class  of  citizens  in  most  civilized  countries.  Why  is  it  necessary 
for  the  United  States  government  to  issue  such  a  pamphlet  as  the 
one  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  with  its  detailed  description 
and  alluring  illustrations  of  the  sunny  side  of  life  in  the  navy? 
Why  was  it  that,  when  the  British  war  office  enlisted  men  for 
three  year  color  service  believing  that  a  closer  acquaintance  with 
the  service  in  peace  would  render  young  men  eager  to  extend  the 
term  and  perhaps  choose  to  devote  their  lives  to  a  military  career, 
these  young  soldiers  showed  a  strong  disinclination  to  "extend" — 
greatly  to  the  amazement  of  the  war  office? 

Much  of  the  attraction  for  army  life  is  traceable  to  admiration 
for  such  countries  as  Germany,  where  military  service  is  popular 
and  is  believed  to  be  the  most  potent  factor  in  the  prosperity  and 
efficiency  of  the  nation.  The  habit  of  being  educated  to  attribute 
national  greatness  to  the  "blood  and  iron"  policy  of  Bismarck's 
day,  naturally  creates  a  strong  prejudice  in  favor  of  the  contin- 
uance of  the  present  system;  and  the  more  men  kept  in  training, 
the  stronger  the  inclination  to  fight  when  any  incident  arises  that 
touches  the  sensitive  pride  of  the  military  patriot. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  this  inability  to  commit  national 
causes  to  any  other  solution  than  the  arbitrament  of  war,  may  be 
found  in  this  utterance  of  Colonel  Maude  of  the  British  army  in  an 


74  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

article  which  appeared  in  the  Contemporary  Review  some  years 
ago.  After  quoting  Lord  Overstone  as  ending  his  remarks  about 
the  consequences  of  a  great  war,  in  which  England  might  become 
involved  with  the  words,  "It  must  never  be,"  Colonel  Maude 
argues  in  this  extraordinary  fashion:  "Unfortunately  it  does 
not  lie  with  us  to  prevent  it.  To  many  of  us  who  have  devoted 
our  lives  to  the  general  question  of  such  a  war,  this  conclusion 
seems  uncalled  for.  .  .  .  and  since  the  Almighty  allows  the 
ordeal  of  battle  to  remain  as  the  only  form  of  national  appeal  to 
Him,  the  problem  cannot  in  itself  be  insoluble.  War  is  the  oppor- 
tunity given  to  every  nation  to  regenerate  itself."  Having  stated 
his  belief  that  when  a  nation  "goes  under,"  investigation  inva- 
riably shows  that  the  ultimate  cause  is  corruption  and  the  want  of 
honesty  between  man  and  man,  such  as  filling  cartridges  with 
harmless  sawdust,  supplying  men  with  rotten  provisions,  etc., 
he  consoles  himself  and  the  British  nation  with  the  thought  that 
"at  least  in  these  respects  the  British  are  not  worse  than  their 
probable  enemies;"  and  he  piously  concludes  that,  if  this  be  so, 
then  "we  may  await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Arbiter  without 
fear  of  failing,  certain  that  we  shall  come  through  our  trouble 
as  our  fathers  before  us." 

Such  gatherings  as  peace  congresses  afford  a  striking  refuta- 
tion of  utterances  like  the  above,  and  yet  the  hesitation  of  the 
intelligent  and  influential  classes  of  all  countries  to  admit  the 
absurd  logic  of  the  present  situation  is  difficult  to  explain.  No 
one  would  deny  that  there  is  manifested  everywhere  d,  growing 
repugnance  for  the  barbarities  and  the  wastefulness  of  war;  and 
that  all  movements  for  the  alleviation  of  the  sufferings  incident  to 
battle  receive  hearty  support.  As  to  the  economic  danger  and 
the  percentage  of  mortality  being  negligible  quantities,  the  in- 
frequency  of  war  in  modern  times  is,  of  course,  to  be  taken  into 
account;  but  there  is  no  less  logic  in  the  assumption  by  the  advo- 
cates of  peace  than  by  the  war  department  that  a  serious  war  may 
break  out.  The  statistics  of  recent  wars  show  a  by  no  means 
negligible  mortality  and,  moreover,  they  reveal  the  startling  fact 
that  the  losses  from  disease  far  exceed  those  from  wounds.  In 
the  Civil  War  the  ratio  was  one  hundred  thousand  deaths  from 


LORD  75 

wounds  and  four  hundred  thousand  from  disease;  in  the  recent 
Madagascar  campaign,  the  French  lost  seven  thousand  from  pre- 
ventable diseases;  in  the  Boer  War  there  were  ten  times  as  many 
deaths  from  disease  as  from  battle,  and  in  the  Spanish  War  the 
ratio  was  fourteen  to  one. 

Modern  science  has  made  it  possible  to  reduce  very  appreciably 
the  death  rate  in  large  cities,  and  the  public  is  much  concerned 
about  race  suicide.  Why,  then,  since  there  are,  according  to  a 
recent  estimate,  some  two  hundred  thousand  commissioned  offi- 
cers and  about  four  million  men  regularly  under  arms  in  Europe 
alone,  and  that  on  a  peace  footing,  should  governments  fail  to 
take  into  account  even  the  smallest  percentage  of  mortality  among 
the  men  who  are  selected  to  risk  their  lives  in  war  and  the  effects 
of  such  sacrifice  of  the  life  upon  the  survival  of  the  fittest  in  race 
evolution? 

Interest  in  the  conservation  of  forests,  coal  mines,  oil  fields  and 
water-power  sites  has  gained  an  immense  momentum  in  the  past 
two  years,  but  the  proposal  to  establish  a  federal  department  of 
health  in  the  United  States  for  the  conservation  of  human  life 
has  met  with  open  opposition.  And  yet  the  absurdity  of  deliber- 
ately encouraging  the  destruction  of  the  highest  physical  types 
of  the  civilized  races  of  the  earth,  instead  of  spending  revenue  and 
brain  power  in  exterminating  those  insidious  pests  and  scourges 
of  humanity  that  are  more  deadly  than  our  hypothetical  enemies 
must  be  patent  to  every  patriotic  citizen. 

If  we  admit  that  the  instinct  to  struggle  is  inherent  in  human 
nature  and  lies  dormant  beneath  the  veneered  surface  of  civili- 
zation; if  we  admit  also  that  this  element  of  pugnacity  has  tended 
to  prevent  stagnation  and  degeneration  of  races  and  that  it  has 
developed  the  heroic  virtues  of  courage,  perseverance  and  self- 
sacrifice;  if,  to  use  the  phrase  of  Professor  James,  war  is  "human 
nature  at  its  highest  dynamic"  and  its  abolishment  would  weaken 
our  fibre  and  quench  our  spirit;  in  other  words,  if  we  agree  with 
those  who  insist  that  the  benefits  of  war  have  been  worth  the  price, 
how  are  we  to  extricate  ourselves  from  the  horns  of  this  logical 
dilemma? 

I  am  not  so  sure  that  the  proposition  of  Professor  James,  some- 


76  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

what  quizzically  suggested  perhaps,  does  not  contain  the  germ 
of  a  rational  solution.  His  plan  is  that  the  youth  of  the  land 
be  enlisted  by  conscription  in  a  disciplined,  intelligently  directed 
campaign  against  the  forces  of  nature  in  coal  mines  and  swamps, 
and  in  those  occupations  that  develop  manliness  and  hardihood, 
"toughness  without  callousness."  Such  service  might  seem 
an  odd  substitute  for  military  campaigning,  but  the  suggestion 
that  the  "moral  equivalent  of  war"  is  to  be  found  in  economic, 
political  and  intellectual  struggle  is  highly  valuable  and  practi- 
cal. Novicow,  in  his  book  on  War  and  its  Alleged  Benefits,  puts 
the  same  philosophy  of  conservation  in  a  somewhat  more  prac- 
tical form,  when  he  affirms  that  "man  has  many  enemies  besides 
man,  when  such  elements  of  destruction  as  droughts,  famine, 
floods  and  microbes  challenge  the  intelligence  and  energy  of  man- 
kind. Why  should  we  consent  to  such  a  prodigious  waste  of 
economic  effort  in  the  destruction  of  our  fellow  men  or  in  the 
attempt  to  prevent  them  from  destroying  us  when  those  other 
elements  of  destruction  surround  us  on  every  side?" 

Men  are  already  coming  to  realize  that  the  heroic  virtues  are 
not  the  monopoly  of  the  soldier.  An  editorial  in  a  recent  number 
of  the  World's  Work  drew  attention  to  the  results  of  a  voting 
competition  among  the  subscribers  to  one  of  the  Paris  journals, 
who  were  asked  to  name  the  greatest  hero  in  French  history. 
The  contest  resulted  in  favor  not  of  Napoleon,  but  of  Pasteur. 

If  history  is  studied  from  the  psychological  view-point,  I  think 
it  will  be  discovered  that  the  instinct  to  unite,  to  federate,  is  as 
strong  as  the  instinct  to  fight:  certainly  we  shall  never  reach  the 
culmination  of  hu^nan  civilization  until  man  becomes  the  ally, 
not  the  enemy  of  man.  Many  pleas  will  be  heard  during  this 
Congress  for  the  application  of  judicial  procedure  to  the  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes.  Personally  I  am  not  concerned 
for  the  moment  with  the  practical  wisdom  of  disarmament  or 
the  immediate  abolition  of  war.  I  am,  however,  a  firm  believer 
in  the  maxim  that  "no  evil  was  ever  got  rid  of  by  the  reiteration 
of  its  inevitability." 

If  this  paper  shall  have  made  the  smallest  contribution  to  the 
movement  for  discouraging  that  conception  of  patriotism  that 


LORD  77 

would  dedicate  the  flower  of  manhood  to  the  anti-social  conse- 
quences of  war  and  the  standing  army;  if  it  has  pressed  home  more 
convincingly  the  logical  absurdity  of  spending  more  national 
energy  upon  the  means  of  destruction  than  upon  the  agencies  of 
conservation  of  the  human  species,  it  will  have  served  its  purpose. 
Perhaps  no  more  fitting  close  could  be  devised  than  that  noble 
plea  of  Erasmus  for  the  restoration  of  man  to  that  dignified 
supremacy  over  the  brute  creation  for  which  he  was  endowed 
with  the  choicest  gifts  of  nature's  God: 

"What  evil  spirit,"  he  exclaims,  ''what  pestilence,  what  mis- 
chief, what  madness  put  first  in  man's  mind  a  thing  beyond  meas- 
ure beastly,  that  this  most  pleasant  and  reasonable  creature,  man, 
the  which  nature  hath  brought  forth  to  peace  and  benevolence, 
which  one  alone  she  hath  brought  forth  to  the  help  and  succor 
of  all  other,  should  with  so  wild  wilfulness,  with  so  mad  rages, 
run  headlong  one  to  destroy  another." 

To  ambitious  princes  he  exclaims,  "Ye  say  ye  make  war  for 
the  safeguard  of  the  commonwealth,  yea;  but  noway  sooner  nor 
more  unthriftily  may  the  commonwealth  perish  than  by  war. 
For  before  ye  enter  into  the  field,  ye  have  already  hurt  more  your 
country  than  ye  do  good  getting  the  victory.  Ye  waste  the  citizens' 
goods,  ye  fill  the  houses  with  lamentation,  ye  fill  all  the  country 
with  thieves,  robbers  and  ravishers.  For  these  are  the  relics  of 
war.  If  ye  love  your  own  subjects  truly,  why  revolve  you  not 
in  mind  these  words:  'Why  shall  I  put  so  many,  in  their  lusty 
flourishing  youth,  in  all  mischiefs  and  perils?  Why  shall  I  de- 
part so  many  honest  wives  and  their  husbands,  and  make  so  many 
fatherless  children?  ....  If  there  be  any  rights  that  admit 
of  being  defended  by  war  they  are  rights  of  a  grosser  kind,  which 
savor  of  a  Christianity  already  becoming  degenerate  and  burdened 
with  the  wealth  of  this  world." 

Chairman  Remsen:  The  third  speaker  this  evening  is  Mr. 
Talcott  Williams  of  the  Philadelphia  Press,  and  I  have  the  pleas- 
ure of  introducing  Mr.  Williams. 


78  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

INTERNATIONAL  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  INTERNAL 

ORDER 

BY  MR.  TALCOTT  WILLIAMS 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  speak  between  the 
upper  mill  stones  of  the  clock  and  the  lower  mill  stones  of  two 
speakers  who  are  to  follow  me.  I  shal'  therefore  abridge  the 
discussion  which  I  propose  to  present  to  you.  My  topic  is 
International  Responsibility  for  Internal  Order.  We  are  met 
here  in  this  Congress  not  to  palliate  the  evils  of  war  and  diminish 
them  by  any  method  whatsoever,  but  to  endeavor  to  end  them. 

Peace  is  the  health  of  nations.  War  is  disease.  Peace  is  nor- 
mal. War  pathological.  War  never  comes  without  some  derang- 
ing cause  which  destroys  the  natural  desire  of  all  civilized  men,  of 
all  men  above  the  imbruted  savage,  to  live  at  peace  with  their 
neighbors.  By  nature  and  her  hereditary  instincts,  man  is  neither 
a  beast  of  prey  nor  descended  from  a  primitive  line  red  with  teeth 
and  claw.  His  animal  ancestors  were  peaceful.  Peace  for  him 
was  earlier  than  war  and  shall  outlast  it,  for 

Its  foundations  builded  are 
Below  the  tides  of  war. 

War  will  never  cease  from  among  men  until  we  know  its  reasons 
and  remove  them.  War  will  end  when  the  causes  that  make  war 
end.  These  causes  men  widely  mistake.  Desire  for  conquest, 
thirst  for  territory,  conflicting  ideals  of  race,  polity,  religion, 
struggles  over  trade  and  between  industrial  systems — these  have 
been  the  great  causes  of  war  in  the  past.  When  the  modern 
European  system  emerged  from  the  wreck  of  feudalism,  all  wars 
were  of  this  character.  They  were  wars  of  personal  ambition, 
as  between  Francis  I  of  Valois  and  Charles  V  of  Hapsburg;  wars 
of  race  and  religion,  as  between  Christian  and  Moslem;  wars  of 
religion  only,  as  in  the  Reformation;  wars  of  freedom  and  religion, 
as  between  the  Low  Countries  and  Spain,  civil  polity  playingas 
large  a  share  as  faith;  wars  of  trade,  as  those  over  India,  and  of 
opposing  industrial  systems  as  between  our  North  and  South,  to 
be  followed,  it  may  be,  by  some  gigantic  struggle  yet  to  come 


WILLIAMS  79 

between  differing  ideals  on  the  ownership  of  property  and  the 
distribution  of  its  usufruct. 

These  causes  still  remain  and  may  at  any  time  recur,  but  they 
have  not  been  dominant  in  the  wars  of  the  past  sixty  years. 
From  them  only  three  or  four  wars  in  that  period  have  sprung — 
our  Civil  War,  from  opposing  industrial  systems  intertwined 
with  opposing  political  ideals;  the  Franco-German  War,  and  the 
two  with  Denmark  and  Austria,  sheer  struggles  as  to  which  nation 
should  be  the  stronger  in  the  European  world.  Misgovernment 
and  internal  disorder  were  the  immediate  and  compelling  causes 
of  other  wars,  since  the  constitutional  period  in  Europe,  estab- 
lished some  form  of  self-government  as  the  normal  rule  to  which 
all  civilized  lands  were  tending.  Had  the  small  Italian  states 
been  as  well  administered  as  Belgium,  there  might  have  been 
and  probably  would  have  been  a  federated  Italy  as  there  is  a 
federated  Germany,  but  an  Italian  kingdom  would  have  been 
long  in  coming  because  the  one  force  which  moved  the  lower 
deeps  of  Italian  revolution  and  European  sympathy  was  the 
shameless  oppression,  disorder  and  peculation  of  the  petty  king- 
doms which  divided  Italy,  evils  shared  in  Austrian  Lombardy 
and  Venice.  Had  Turkey  been  as  well  governed,  one  need  not 
say  as  a  European  state,  but  had  its  administration  matched 
that  of  a  Moslem  kingdom  such  as  is  ruled  over  by  the  Nizam  of 
Naidarabad — who  has,  let  us  remember,  a  population  under  his 
rule  nearly  one-half  as  large  as  that  of  the  Sultan  of  Turkey, 
four-fifths  of  it  Hindoos,  idolatrous  in  the  eyes  of  everyMoslem — 
neither  the  Crimean  War  nor  the  Turko-Russian  War  would  have 
ever  occurred.  A  well  administered  Turkish  state,  without 
oppression,  preserving  religious  liberty  and  dealing  fairly  by  all 
its  motley  races,  would  have  never  occasioned  the  successive 
steps  from  the  destructions  of  the  Turkish  fleet  in  the  harbor  of 
Navarine  to  its  second  destruction  in  Sinope,  which  ended  in 
the  interference  of  England  and  France  with  the  advance  of  Russia. 
This  advance  would  never  have  been  taken  up  a  second  time  if 
the  Balkan  massacres  had  not  moved  the  Slav  world.  Had  the 
Turkish  constitution  of  1876  established  the  same  liberal  regime 
as  exists  today  in  Turkey,  had  it  been  as  now  a  realm  in  which 


80  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

all  faiths  were  able  to  live  at  peace  and  in  which  the  reckless  use 
of  irregular  Oriental  troops  in  a  peaceful  population  had  not 
moved  the  mingled  horror  and  wrath  of  Europe,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  for  Alexander  II  in  1817  to  cross  the  Danube. 
If  today  Turkey  becomes  a  fairly  governed  state  and  is  wise  enough 
to  permit  the  gradual  civilization  of  Albania,  instead  of  rashly 
attempting  its  subjection,  the  territory  of  Turkey  will  remain 
intact.  Macedonia  has  been  a  danger  point,  liable  at  any  mo- 
ment to  invite  attack,  because  it  was  wretchedly  governed.  .  Had 
the  international  police  proposed  by  the  Macedonian  Conven- 
tion of  1903  been  organized,  instead  of  being  frustrated  by  the 
covert  determination  of  the  Sublime  Porte  to  have  no  interfer- 
ence with  its  oppression  and  rapine  and  the  open  readiness  of 
Russia  and  Austria  to  keep  a  running  sore  which  weakened  the 
Turkish  Empire,  the  Balkan  peninsula  would  not  be  as  it  is  and 
promises  long  to  remain,  the  center  of  danger  to  eastern  Europe. 
It  was  the  misgovernment  of  Turkey  which  brought  on  the  Greek 
revolution  and  the  Greek  War  of  fourteen  years  ago.  It  was 
misgovernment  in  Crete  which  repeatedly  brought  the  European 
Powers  close  to  strife.  It  was  misgovernment  in  Egypt  which 
made  it  the  possible  causes  of  European  war  in  1881.  Egypt 
would  be  as  safe  as  Belgium  had  Egypt  been  as  well  governed  by 
Ismail  as  Belgium  was  by  Leopold,  and  the  world  would  have 
allowed  the  former  ruler  to  amass  a  prodigious  private  fortune  as 
readily  as  it  allowed  Leopold,  had  there  not  been  in  Egypt  that 
combination  of  avarice  and  oppression,  of  heavy  taxation  on  indus- 
try, and  faithless  disregard  of  public  obligations  which  in  modern 
times  creates  conditions  which  breed  war.  Given  a  well  governed 
Korea,  and  its  annexation  by  Japan  would  have  never  taken  place. 
Given  a  China  equal,  one  need  not  assume  to  military  prowess, 
but  to  the  maintenance  of  a  fair  and  reasonable  order  for  foreign 
commerce  and  domestic  industry,  and  the  conditions  would  have 
never  existed  which  led  step  by  step  to  one  small  war  after  another, 
in  time  to  the  collision  between  Japan  and  China,  the  Boxer  revolt, 
the  Russo-Japanese  War,  and  today,  the  impending  disturbance 
in  Canton  which  threatens  and  may  prove  perilous  to  the  safety 
of  the  Chinese  Empire.  Had  Spain  governed  Cuba  well,  one  need 
not  say  as  England  governed  Jamaica,  but  even  as  well  as  Holland 


WILLIAMS  8 1 

governs  Java  or  Japan,  Formosa,  our  war  with  Spain  would  never 
have  come.  A  stable  Mexico  would  never  have  seen  on  the  Rio 
Grande  the  first  American  army  corps  mobilised  since  the  Civil 
War.  Had  President  Diaz  to  his  amazing  powers  as  a  despotic 
ruler  added  the  prescience  for  the  future  self-government  of  Mex- 
ico which  the  United  States  has  shown  in  the  Philippines,  there 
would  never  have  come  the  explosion  which  is  devastating  our 
sister  republic,  for  there  is  no  way  in  which  men  so  certainly  court 
an  explosion  as  by  sitting  on  the  safety  valve  of  free  discussion. 
With  Canada  war  is  impossible,  incredible,  unbelievable,  because 
Canada  and  the  United  States,  with  all  the  shortcomings  of  each 
— and  they  are  many  on  both  sides  of  the  line — are  fairly  well 
governed  nations,  meeting  their  obligations,  preserving  order,  and 
maintaining  civilization.  Given  a  Mexico  as  well  governed  as 
Canada,  and  the  Rio  Grande,  like  the  St.  Lawrence,  would  be  a 
frontier  which  one  would  cross  scarcely  aware  that  it  had  been 
traversed.  What  is  true  of  the  great  wars  in  the  past  sixty  years 
is  true  of  the  small  ones.  If  Servia  and  Bulgaria  fell  out,  it  was 
because  neither  was  properly  administered.  If  Chili  and  Peru 
flew  at  each  other's  throat  thirty  years  ago  each  of  us  is  well 
aware  it  was  because  the  government  of  each  was  defective,  and 
the  more  effective  government  tore  from  Bolivia  the  provinces 
of  Tarapaca  and  Africa,  which  both  Peru  and  Chili  were  proposing 
to  rend  from  a  republic  which  has  not  from  the  time  it  adopted 
the  name  of  the  liberator  had  a  single  year  of  even  respectable 
administration.  One  could  run  through  all  the  acquisition  of 
territory  of  the  past  sixty  years — the  occupation  by  France  of 
Tonquin,  Tunis  and  Madagascar,  the  English  conquest  of  the 
Boer  States,  and  the  many  English  annexations,  like  those  of 
Burmah,  Asam  and  Beloochistan — and  each  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
within  the  area  annexed  the  level  of  administration,  the  security 
of  life  and  property,  the  protection  of  trade,  and  the  taxation  of 
foreign  capital  had  taken  the  form  of  spoliation.  Were  the  five 
small  countries  of  northern  Europe — Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark, 
Holland  and  Belgium — to  sink  to  the  same  level  of  misrule  as 
some  of  the  powers  which  have  just  been  mentioned,  to  begin  the 
same  reckless  taxation  of  foreign  ports  which  cost  the  Transvaal 
its  independence,  to  make  their  territory  the  source  of  devastating 


82  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

epidemics  as  did  Spain  in  Cuba,  and  to  stand  the  visible  example 
of  a  country  in  which  oppression  was  supported  by  cruelty  and 
every  movement  toward  self-government  stifled  by  armed  force, 
these  countries  would  be  absorbed  by  their  neighbors  and  cease 
to  be,  after  some  war  which  would  set  all  Europe  ablaze. 

When  the  ambassador  of  the  king  of  Spain,  admitted  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  under  the  English  Commonwealth,  told  the 
body  which  had  just  tried  a  king  and  beheaded  him  that  his  master 
held  to  the  doctrine  that  each  country  had  a  right  to  decide  what 
manner  of  government  it  desired  and  none  other  had  a  right  to 
interfere  with  it,  he  laid  down  the  broad  and  general  doctrine  of 
the  mutual  independence  of  all  states  in  internal  affairs  which 
Grotius  had  just  developed  into  recognized  international  law, 
accepted  as  almost  fundamental  and  still  asserted  as  a  primary 
postulate  in  international  relations.  The  past  half  century  has 
seen  grave  modifications  worked  in  this  ancient  doctrine.  It  was 
easy  to  maintain  this  doctrine  when  the  alien  population  of  a 
nation  was  small,  intercommunication  diflScult,  and  neither  rail- 
road nor  steamship  brought  all  lands  into  constant  and  close 
relations.  Investments  are  today  universal.  Where  a  century 
ago  nations  were  by  treaty  permitting  the  citizens  of  each  to 
secure  a  domicile  within  their  sovereignty,  today  this  right  is 
granted  by  statute  in  most  civilized  states  and  accepted  by  all 
as  the  natural  right  of  humanity  between  nations  sufficiently 
similar  to  create  no  serious  danger  from  the  admixture  of  differ- 
ing standards  of  living,  ideals  of  behavior,  or  social  and  moral 
habits.  In  the  family  of  civilization  there  has  come  to  be  a  stand- 
ard of  living  almost  as  distinct  as  that  which  exists  in  any  society 
with  reference  to  the  family.  United  Europe  took  Switzerland 
to  task  sixty  years  ago  for  harboring  political  refugees.  Lord 
Palmerston  a  little  over  a  half  century  ago  challenged  the  admin- 
istration of  Naples  on  the  open  ground  that  its  misgovernment 
was  likely  to  involve  Europe  in  war  and  could  not  be  accepted 
without  protest.  From  the  Congress  of  Paris  at  the  close  of  the 
Crimean  War  through  a  series  of  nearly  a  score  of  gatherings 
since  of  the  signatory  powers,  the  internal  condition  of  Turkey 
has  been  held  to  be  a  subject  of  European  concern,  and  to  this 


WILLIAMS  83 

have  been  successively  joined  the  internal  conditions  of  Egypt, 
Tunis,  Morocco,  Persia,  the  waters  which  surround  the  Arabian 
peninsula,  and  parts  of  the  peninsula  itself,  because  any  one  may 
bring  war.  The  internal  conditions  of  Turkey,  in  spite  of  the 
division  of  the  continent,  are  accepted  as  a  just  subject  of  inter- 
national discussion  and  protest  for  a  like  reason.  Just  as  there 
is  a  certain  standard  of  internal  order  for  a  civilized  state,  so  there 
has  grown  to  be  a  certain  standard  in  the  management  of  a  colony, 
Belgium  and  Portugal  have  both  been  called  to  account  for  depart- 
ing from  it.  Holland  has  been  the  subject  of  criticism.  It  has 
come  to  be  generally  recognized  that  any  power  is  bound,  if  it 
has  colonies,  to  maintain  a  certain  level  of  administration,  to  avoid 
oppressive  taxation,  and  to  use  a  colony,  not  for  the  profit  of  its 
suzerain,  but  in  order  to  secure  the  internal  development  of  the 
colony  itself. 

This  profound  change  has  taken  place  in  the  last  half  of  a  cen- 
tury which  began  with  every  civilized  power,  England  included, 
excluding  all  aliens  from  its  colonica.  Spain  at  the  opening  of  the 
nineteenth  century  was  treating  as  pirates  luckless  American 
skippers  whom  profit  led  into  the  Spanish  main,  and  its  policy 
which  closed  not  only  the  territories  under  its  flag  but  the  seas  and 
ocean  about  them  to  alien  vessels  was  universal.  Instead  today 
all  colonies  are  equally  open  to  all.  The  management  of  colonies 
is  a  subject  of  mutual  concern,  and  nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  the  persistent  and  continual  failure  of  Portugal  properly 
to  govern  its  possessions  in  Africa  will  be  ended  by  their  loss. 

If  a  standard  of  living  is  now  recognized  among  civilized  nations, 
it  is  because  its  absence  is  liable  to  bring  collision.  If  standards 
of  colonial  administration  are  accepted  and  any  departure  from 
them  brings  the  culprit,  if  not  under  diplomatic  protest,  under 
public  discussion,  it  is  because  an  ill  governed  colony  sooner  or 
later  brings  collision.  Morocco  is  today  liable  again  to  embroil 
France  and  Germany  because  its  government  is  not  strong  enough 
to  keep  order.  Were  Morocco  now  as  well  governed  as  it  was  by 
Mulzi-Hassan,  the  father  of  the  present  Sultan,  there  would  be 
no  French  occupation  at  Casablanca  or  Oudja  and  the  relations 
of  the  Sherifian  Empire  would  be  as  peaceful  as  they  were  from 


84  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

1873  to  1894,  the  limits  of  his  reign.  It  is  idle  to  suppose  that 
either  treaties  or  courts,  international  arbitration  or  agreements 
limiting  armaments  can  ever  prevent  war  when  in  any  one  of  the 
units  which  make  up  the  world  of  humanity  today  there  is  visible 
disorder.  Inevitably  where  this  exists  international  issues  will 
arise  whose  final  settlement  will  bring  war  near  and  whose  ulti- 
mate adjustment  will  probably  only  be  possible  with  the  sword. 
Peace  rests  on  justice.  If  a  government  weak  and  unable  to 
maintain  order,  dealing  injustice  on  a  colossal  scale  to  helpless 
human  beings  instead  of  justice  which  governments  are  organized 
to  administer,  if  life  is  unsafe,  if  property  is  insecure,  if  debts  can- 
not be  collected,  if  contracts  are  unenforced,  if  courts  are  venal, 
if  administration  is  corrupt,  if  differences  of  faith  are  visited  with 
persecution  and  differences  of  race  with  oppression  and  massacres 
— by  mobs  of  single  victims  or  many — the  moment  is  sure  to  come 
when  the  cup  will  fill,  and  for  every  drop  which  has  been  shed  by 
the  innocent  and  the  helpless  victims  of  oppression  or  prejudice 
there  will  fall  on  some  battlefield  the  plentiful  rain  of  war. 

The  remedy  for  all  this  does  not  lie  in  the  attempt  to  maintain 
the  international  figment  that  the  internal  affairs  of  each  nation 
are  of  no  consequence  to  another,  because  this  is  not  true.  Every 
nation  suffers  from  the  disorder  of  every  other  nation  in  a  greater 
or  a  less  degree.  Peace  cannot  be  secured  by  laboriously  endeav- 
oring to  adjust  machinery  by  which  open  and  definite  issues 
between  countries  over  some  trifle  of  territory,  claim  or  jurisdiction 
shall  be  settled  when  there  is  left  untouched,  unavenged  and  un- 
redressed the  misery  of  millions  and  the  worst  of  all  human 
wrongs,  injustice  at  the  fount  of  justice,  spoliation  under  the 
guise  of  taxation,  and  the  denial  of  human  rights  to  humanity. 
The  clock  of  international  justice  is  not  always  striking  twelve, 
but  when  it  does  the  high  noon  of  retribution  has  come  and  noth- 
ing can  prevent  nations  which  have  permitted  these  evils  long  to 
remain  without  redressing  them  by  peaceful  measures  from  being 
led  into  that  costliest  of  all  punishments,  wars  which  might  have 
been  prevented  if  the  evils  which  caused  them  had  been  earlier 
removed. 

Instructed  by  paying  this  costly  penalty,  the  United  States 


WILLIAMS  85 

wrote  a  new  chapter  in  international  responsibility  for  internal 
disorder  when  in  what  is  known  as  the  Piatt  amendment,  it  re- 
quired of  Cuba  as  the  price  of  its  independence  the  maintenance 
of  what  I  have  already  termed  the  standard  of  living  as  between 
civilized  nations.  As  long  as  Cuba  prevents  pestilence,  main- 
tains order,  and  enforces  contracts,  the  independence  of  the 
island  remains  as  secure  as  though  it  were  protected  by  the  fleets 
of  the  world.  When  it  lapses  from  this  standard,  the  United 
States,  having  learned  once  for  all  that  such  lapses  bring  their 
penalty  not  only  for  those  who  suffer  the  wrong  but  for  those 
who  permit  it,  discharges  the  international  responsibility  for 
internal  order  by  occupation.  The  same  task  has  been  under- 
taken in  Santa  Domingo,  whose  condition  was  once  likely  to  lead 
to  hostile  action  on  behalf  of  bondholders.  Steps  have  been 
taken  towards  it  in  Haiti.  A  tyrant  has  been  excluded  from 
Venezuela,  where  his  policy  narrowly  escaped  bringing  war,  as 
tyranny  is  always  liable  to  do.  A  beginning  has  at  least  been 
made  to  require  the  observance  of  a  civilized  standard  of  living 
in  Central  America.  In  Mexico  it  will  be  seen  in  the  end  that 
nothing  is  quite  so  costly  as  the  hallucination  that  material  de- 
velopment can  be  safely  purchased  at  the  expense  of  human 
rights  and  the  postponement  of  self-government.  In  some  way, 
by  some  means,  through  some  path,  it  will  be  necessary  to  secure 
in  Mexico  that  standard  of  living  among  nations  which  preserved 
peace  and  which  alone  can  preserve  peace. 

This  great  task  assumed  in  whole  for  Cuba  by  the  United  States 
and  in  part  for  other  lands,  opening  a  new  chapter  in  international 
relations  under  which  nations  maintain  their  mutual  independence 
but  are  required,  as  members  of  a  common  international  system, 
to  preserve  certain  standards,  is  too  near  our  own  experience  to 
enable  us  to  appreciate  its  momentous  importance.  Were  this 
same  principle  in  practice  applied  to  the  world,  were  all  the  vari- 
ous lands  which  are  today  points  of  danger,  liable  at  any  moment 
to  become  the  pivots  of  international  conflict,  were  Morocco 
and  Persia,  for  instance,  to  be  taken  in  hand  by  an  international 
commission  backed  by  the  overwhelming  force  of  the  civilized 
world,  given  the  benefit  of  a  thorough  reorganization,  and  then 


86  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

left  independent  to  work  out  their  own  salvation  under  their 
own  flag,  free  from  any  subjection  to  any  power,  peace  would 
be  rendered  more  certain  and  war  less  liable  in  the  European 
system.  What  is  true  of  these  two  lands  is  true  in  a  lesser  degree 
of  a  great  country  like  China.  Could  Korea  have  had  this  treat- 
ment, Japan  would  not  be  ruling  an  unwilling  dependency  and 
the  prospect  of  bitter  hate  would  not  cloud  all  the  future  of  the 
Korean  peninsula.  It  is  too  early  in  the  development  of  human 
affairs  to  expect  full  appreciation  of  the  large-minded  magnanimity 
of  the  United  States  in  dealing  with  the  weaker  nations  south 
of  our  borders.  In  time,  if  war  is  to  be  prevented,  some  such 
plan  is  necessary.  Mere  arbitration  over  definite  issues  will 
never  prevent  all  war  if  the  causes  of  every  war  but  three  or  four 
during  the  last  sixty  years  are  permitted  in  one  land  and  another 
to  fester  until  the  only  apparent  remedy  for  the  diseased  member 
seemed  to  be  the  surgery  of  the  sword.  The  United  States  has 
had  a  comparatively  easy  duty  to  discharge  in  launching  this 
new  international  practice  and  openly  acknowledging  inter- 
national responsibility  for  internal  order,  because  its  ninety 
millions  constitute  an  overwhelming  majority  in  numbers,  in 
force,  in  material  wealth,  and  in  all  resources  of  civilization  of  the 
Western  Hemisphere.  A  like  task  is  immeasurably  difficult  in 
Europe,  because  its  balance  of  powers  divides  and  renders  impos- 
sible the  discharge  of  common  duties,  so  that  one  war  has  suc- 
ceeded another  through  the  last  two  centuries.  But  in  the  end 
this  new  duty  will  be  recognized  and  is  unconsciously  now  in  the 
attempt  to  organize  an  international  police  for  Macedonia  and 
Morocco,  in  the  commissions  which  managed  the  debts  of  Greece 
and  Egypt,  and  in  a  sense  of  Turkey,  in  the  effort  to  create  sim- 
ilar bodies  for  China,  in  the  consent  of  European  countries  that 
a  neutral  power  like  the  United  States  should  furnish  the  com- 
mission that  is  reorganizing  both  the  debt  and  the  finances  of 
Persia,  in  the  similar  task  which  is  being  discharged  in  Siam,  in 
our  own  adjustment  of  the  debts  of  Santa  Domingo,  Honduras 
and  Liberia,  a  course  which  in  due  time  will  be  taken  for  every 
bankrupt  nation  in  the  American  system  and  probably  in  the  old 
world.     The  future  will  see  that  it  is  cheaper,  more  efficacious, 


WILLIAMS  87 

and  more  just  to  deal  with  disorder  before  it  has  brought  war, 
even  if  force  is  necessary  to  accomplish  this,  than  to  permit 
neglected  disorder  to  breed  a  pestilence  of  war  as  neglected  sani- 
tation breeds  epidemics  whose  effect  can  never  be  limited  to  the 
foul  place  which  produced  them.  Nor  can  it  be  forgotten  that 
the  international  responsibility  for  internal  order  is  mutual.  If 
strong  nations  are  responsible  for  the  internal  order  of  the  weak, 
strong  nations  are  responsible  also  to  the  world  for  their  own 
internal  order.  Whatever  of  evil  any  great  nation  permits  within 
its  borders  weakens  its  moral  force  and  position  in  requiring  of 
lesser  lands  a  due  standard  of  living  in  their  internal  administra- 
tion. If  a  great  nation  like  our  own  is  careless  over  the  pro- 
tection of  aliens  like  Chinese  and  Japanese  within  its  borders,  if 
violent  injustice  to  its  own  citizens  passes  without  rebuke  or 
protest  and  is  permitted  to  continue  from  decade  to  decade,  it 
ceases  to  be  able  in  the  forum  of  nations  to  raise  an  effective  voice 
for  justice,  for  order,  for  peace,  and  for  the  protection  even  of  its 
own  citizens  in  other  lands.  Into  that  great  court  of  equity,  the 
public  opinion  of  man,  a  nation  must  come  with  clean  hands  if 
it  is  to  require  of  other  lands  the  maintenance  of  the  due  standards 
of  civilized  society.  Every  fault  we  permit  in  our  own  land,  every 
weakness  or  worse,  in  our  own  administration,  every  lack  of 
justice,  every  prejudice  which  brings  bitter  fruit,  and  every  failure 
to  remember  the  common  claims  of  all  humanity  to  common 
rights  and  common  justice,  weakens  before  all  the  world  the  in- 
fluence of  the  great  republic  in  requiring  of  all  lands  the  discharge 
of  all  the  duties  of  a  civilized  state.  The  international  respon- 
sibility for  internal  order  is  therefore  within  as  well  as  without. 
It  is  a  responsibility  as  direct  and  immediate  with  reference  to 
the  internal  administration  of  a  country  exercising  responsibility 
as  in  requiring  of  other  lands  a  due  regard  for  the  maintenance  of 
justice,  order  and  self-government.  In  short,  the  best  guarantee 
of  peace  which  can  exist  to  day  is  not  only  based  on  universal 
arbitration  and  the  reduction  of  armaments,  but  it  rests  also  on 
the  exercise  and  discharge  of  the  duty  which  every  nation  bears 
to  all  the  world  that  its  internal  order  shall  be  such  that  is  itself 
a  model  and  gives  the  ground  upon  which  it  has  a  right  to  demand 


88  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

that  other  lands  shall  give  to  its  citizens,  its  investments,  and  its 
relations  with  every  other  country  the  same  just  tribunal,  the 
same  honest  administration,  and  the  same  jealous  protection  of 
all  human  rights  which  it  provides. 

The  great  danger  of  peace  today  is  from  the  weakness  of  nations 
which  pass  from  one  failure  in  administration  and  justice  and  order 
to  another,  some  of  them,  like  Morocco  and  Persia,  national 
derelicts,  some  of  them  like  China,  great  hulks,  caught  unaware 
by  storm  and  explosion,  and  refitting,  while  all  the  world  doubts 
if  there  is  still  time  to  prevent  the  great  craft  which,  not  for  a 
thousand,  but  for  three  thousand  years  has  braved  the  battle  and 
the  breeze  from  foundering.  The  cause  of  peace  needs  nothing 
today  more  than  the  clear  conscious  apprehension  of  international 
responsibility  for  internal  order,  the  unhesitating  discharge  in 
the  foreign  policy  of  every  civilized  state  of  this  duty,  and  the 
machinery,  rapidly  developing  under  one  precedent  and  another, 
of  an  orderly  procedure  by  which  international  direction  shall  be 
assumed  of  these  national  derelicts  which,  like  vessels  flying  the 
signal  "not  under  control,"  are  a  peril  to  all  about  them  in  the 
voyage  of  nations  to  the  common  haven  of  peace  in  which  all 
battle  flags  shall  be  at  last  furled. 

Dr.  Thomas  S.  Baker,  of  Port  Deposit,  Maryland,  was  unfor- 
tunately detained  from  the  Second  Session  of  the  Third  National 
Peace  Congress,  but  was  thoughtful  enough  to  submit  the  address 
which  he  had  prepared  on  "Education  and  the  Peace  Movement," 
which  is  printed  as  part  of  the  Proceedings: 

EDUCATION  AND  THE  PEACE  MOVEMENT 

THOMAS    S.    BAKER 

The  idea  of  universal  peace,  which  has  gained  greater  promi- 
nence in  recent  years  than  ever  before,  has  had  a  long  period  of 
preparation  before  it  reached  its  present  definite  form.  The 
object  of  this  paper  is  to  urge,  First:  The  desirability  of  showing 
the  historical  background  in  which  the  present  Peace  Movement 


BAKER  89 

is  fixed.  Second:  The  necessity  of  emphasizing  facts  rather 
than  indefinite  aspirations.  Both  of  these  topics  fall  well  within 
the  range  of  educational  effort. 

There  are  many  advocates  of  universal  peace  who  believe  that 
the  only  solution  of  the  question  lies  in  doing  way  with  national 
distinctions.  They  are  in  favor  of  what  they  conceive  to  be  a 
higher  form  of  altruism  than  is  implied  in  the  word  patriotism. 
They  advocate  what  might  be  called  for  lack  of  a  better  word 
"cosmopolitanism"  rather  than  nationalism.  The  good  of  the 
whole  race  is  a  higher  ideal  to  strive  for  than  the  good  of  any 
nation.  If  such  a  principle  can  find  general  acceptance,  it  will 
inevitably  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  war.  Such  a  concep- 
tion is,  when  first  considered,  somewhat  shocking,  but  although 
it  may  seem  revolutionary,  it  was  expounded  a  hundred  years 
ago,  and  then  as  now,  it  was  received  with  some  misgivings.  It 
is  not  proposed  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this  idea,  but  merely  to 
show  that  the  present  tendency  to  universalism  or  cosmopolitan- 
ism has  had  a  long  history. 

Many  of  the  catch  words  and  phrases  which  are  used  at  the 
present  time  seem  to  be  entirely  novel,  but  as  is  not  infrequently 
the  case,  one  is  surprised  to  find  that  they  have  been  used  before. 
The  expression,  "The  Federation  of  the  World,"  and  the  idea 
conveyed  by  it,  would  seem  to  be  one  of  the  newest  and  most 
original  contributions  to  the  whole  subject.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  it,  too,  has  a  previous  history.  Probably  the  idea  has 
been  carried  further  by  the  Germans  than  by  any  other  nation. 
Goethe  himself  has  been  accused  of  a  lack  of  patriotism,  of  being 
a  cosmopolitan,  but  the  charge  has  been  resented  by  his  biog- 
raphers. However,  if  the  conception,  that  it  is  better  to  strive 
for  the  good  of  the  entire  race  rather  than  for  the  good  of  a  par- 
ticular nation,  gains  acceptance,  it  may  not  always  be  necessary 
to  apologize  for  Goethe's  so-called  lack  of  patriotism. 

The  cosmopolitanism  of  Goethe  was,  however,  carried  far 
beyond  his  intentions  by  many  Germans  of  a  later  generation. 
This  cosmopolitan  tendency  in  German  thought  reached  its 
height  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  of  1848.  Its  most  bizarre 
features  showed  themselves  in  the  writings  of  the  German  refugees 


90  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

who  came  to  the  United  States  after  this  uprising.  Many  of  these 
men  were  revolutionists  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  They  were 
opposed  to  the  constituted  government  authorities,  they  were 
anti-military  men,  they  objected  to  the  existing  social  conditions. 
They  were,  however,  above  all  things  universalists  or  cosmopoli- 
tans. Patriotism  was  frowned  upon.  They  believed  that  a 
national  literature  should  be  discouraged  and  that  a  literature 
of  the  world  should  take  its  place. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  federation  of  the  world  which  has  been 
taking  place  in  recent  years,  an  absurdly  grotesque  book,  the 
joint  work  of  two  of  these  German  refugees,  has  been  completely 
overlooked.  This  book  has  as  its  plan  for  the  federation  of  the 
world,  the  expansion  of  the  United  States  along  international 
lines.  The  book  is  entitled,  The  New  Rome,  or  the  United  States 
of  the  World.  It  is  the  joint  work  of  Theodore  Poesche  and 
Charles  Goepp.  It  was  published  by  G.  P.  Putnam  and  Com- 
pany, New  York,  1853.  It  is  dedicated  to  Franklin  Pierce, 
President  of  the  United  States,  "being  a  guess  at  the  spirit  in 
which  he  was  elected."  In  spite  of  its  absurdities,  many  of  its 
phrases  have  a  strangely  modern  sound.  The  authors  say  on 
page  67,  "Wars  are  the  results  of  mistaken  ideas  of  interest  and 
pride,  possibly  only  so  long  as  the  individual  identifies  his  per- 
sonal interests,  not  with  those  of  humanity  at  large,  but  with 
those  of  a  certain  portion  of  humanity,  with  whom  he  speaks  the 
same  language,  and  whom  he  terms  a  nation.  Nationality  is  the 
root  of  war.  Nations,  as  soon  as  they  become  self-conscious, 
are  associations  of  people  for  the  purpose  of  taking  away  other 
people's  land;  a  nation  may  be  defined  to  be  an  organization  for 
making  war  on  other  nations,  killing  their  subjects  and  pillaging 
their  property,  or  of  robbing  them  of  their  substance  by  the 
peaceful  means  of  commercial  and  industrial  competition.  Wars 
require  armies;  recurring  wars,  standing  armies;  and  armies, 
generals;  generalissimos  are  monarchs;  and  thus  the  fictions  of 
nationality  are  the  causes  of  all  the  woes  under  which  Europe 
is  struggling." 

And  again  on  page  119,  "The  time  is  past  for  comparing  man  to 
the  vermin  on  the  leaf,  of  which  each  species  can  only  infest  its 


BAKER  91 

particular  plant.  History  now  advances  with  great  strides,  to 
hasten  on  the  day  when  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  one 
people,  united  in  a  single  state.  No  longer  a  circumscribed 
portion  of  lands,  the  new  'orbis  terrarum'  shall  encircle  the  globe; 
and  as  ancient  Rome  assembled  all  the  gods  of  her  empire  in  a 
single  Pantheon,  so  shall  the  ideas  of  all  nations  be  marshalled 
into  unity.  The  signs  of  the  times  are  clear  and  unmistakable, 
and  'The  New  Rome'  awakens  to  her  task,  and  is  resolved  upon 
its  execution.  Let  her  raise  her  banner  of  stars  over  land  and 
sea,  the  token  of  perdition  to  the  despots  and  redemption  to 
the  peoples,   who  may  be  convinced:     In  hoc  signo  vincUr' 

Further,  on  page  8,  the  authors  say,  "The  following  essay  is  a 
map  of  the  future  of  mankind,  drawn  from  surveys  of  the  past 
and  present.  It  professes  to  tell  neither  what  might  nor  what 
should,  but  simply  what  must  be."  Again  on  page  9,  **  Russia 
.  .  .  .  dreams  of  universal  empire;  while  the  American  repub- 
lic, with  the  motto  'E  pluribus  Unum,'  flaming  in  her  fillet,  is 
developing  her  resources  of  mind  and  body  with  an  external  force 
and  an  internal  freedom,  which  mark  her  the  germ  of  a  World's 
Republic. 

"This  'New  Rome,'  the  American  Union,  is  a  reflection  of  the 
old,  even  in  its  geographical  position.  The  Roman  Empire, 
embracing  the  'orbis  terrarum'  of  the  geography  of  those  times, 
was  a  political  organization  of  the  circle  of  lands  that  skirted  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  in  the  midst  of  which,  like  a  great  line-of- 
battle  ship,  was  moored  the  Italian  peninsula.  ...  In  the 
middle  of  these  peninsulas  were  founded,  respectively,  the  Etru- 
rian and  the  British  colonies.  Each  looks  to  the  lands  of  the 
East  for  the  sources  of  its  civilization.  Each  casts  its  eyes  first 
upon  its  native  peninsula,  and  strives  to  reduce  it  to  its  undis- 
puted sway.  Thus,  the  acquisition  of  all  Italy  was  an  important 
epoch  in  Roman  politics;  it  supplied  the  base  for  further  opera- 
tions. Thus  'The  continent  is  ours,'  is  becoming  more  and  more 
distinctly  a  leading  American  aspiration." 

The  history  and  the  plan  of  the  book  can  be  described  in  a  very 
few  words.  In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1852,  certain  Revolu- 
tionary Societies  were  founded  in  the  most  important  cities  of 


92  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  East  and  also  in  a  few  of  the  western  cities.  The  headquarters 
of  the  new  league  was  at  first  in  Philadelphia,  afterwards  in 
Boston.  Its  object  was  to  form  an  universal  republic  with  the 
United  States  as  the  centre.  In  other  words,  to  annex  all  the 
countries  of  the  world  to  the  United  States.  The  motto  of  the 
United  States,  E  plurihus  Unum,  was  taken  in  the  broadest  pos- 
sible sense.  Out  of  all  the  political  divisions  an  universal  empire 
would  be  formed,  just  as  this  country  was  an  aggregation  of  states. 
The  originator  of  this  movement  was  Carl  Goepp,  a  young  Ger- 
man, who  had  been  compelled  to  leave  Europe  because  of  the 
part  which  he  took  in  the  disturbance  of  1848.  The  radical 
doctrines  proposed  by  Goepp  were  first  published  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  E  plurihus   Unum  in   1852. 

These  peculiar  theories  found  further  elaboration  in  the  book 
already  referred  to  by  Theodore  Poesche  and  Charles  Goepp. 
The  authors  say  that  the  confederation  of  all  the  states  of  North 
and  South  America  is  a  question  of  only  a  few  years.  The  time 
seemed  ripe,  California  and  New  Mexico  had  just  been  annexed 
and  the  annexation  of  Cuba  was  being  discussed. 

No  pent-up  Utica  can  hold  our  powers 
The  whole,  the  boundless  continent  is  ours, 

was  a  favorite  sentiment.  With  the  whole  of  the  American  con- 
tinent at  its  back,  the  United  States  would  be  in  a  position  to 
contest  for  the  possession  of  some  of  the  English  colonies.  In 
this  connection  Australia  is  discussed  at  considerable  length  and 
is  easily  disposed  of.  They  say,  ''With  all  the  continent  and 
Australia  in  the  American  scale,  the  addition  of  the  rest  of  the 
world  will  be  a  question  of  time  regulated  by  American  conve- 
nience."  The  infederation  of  England  is  treated  as  a  very  easy 
matter. 

According  to  the  authors,  Russia  is  the  only  nation  of  the  earth 
that  will  offer  any  real  resistance  to  the  march  of  the  United 
States.  Russia  dreamed  also  of  an  universal  empire.  When, 
therefore,  the  United  States  and  Russia  confront  each  other, 
"Then  will  the  mastery  of  Europe  be  the  prize  of  the  death  strug- 
gle between  the  Union  and  the  Czar."     "Thus  the  lines  are  drawn. 


BAKER  93 

The  choirs  are  marshalled  on  each  wing  of  the  world's  stage; 
Russia  leading  the  one,  the  United  States  the  other.  Yet  the 
world  is  too  small  for  both,  and  the  contest  must  end  in  the  down- 
fall of  one,  the  victory  of  the  other."  Victory  is,  of  course,  proph- 
esied for   the  Union. 

What  I  have  said  about  The  New  Rome  shows  its  most  crass 
features.  There  are  many  passages  of  very  great  interest,  espe- 
cially for  those  who  are  occupied  with  this  conception  of  a  fed- 
eration of  all  nations.  In  the  few  moments  at  my  disposal  I  have 
been  able  to  select  a  small  number  of  the  most  striking  paragraphs. 
The  New  Rome  was  published  by  a  publisher  of  good  standing, 
but  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  it  made  hardly  a  ripple  on  the 
surface  of  public  opinion.  It  would  hardly  deserve  being  rescued 
from  its  obscurity,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  these  mad  rev- 
olutionaries were  the  mouth-piece  of  a  larger  idea  which  they 
distorted  in  their  effort  to  appeal  to  the  vanity  of  the  American 
nation. 

II. 

In  promoting  any  great  idea,  in  making  propaganda  of  any 
sort,  it  is  important  that  especial  attention  should  be  given  to 
young  people.  This  is  not  a  debatable  question;  its  importance 
is  recognized  by  the  various  peace  associations,  and  a  vast  amount 
of  work  has  already  been  undertaken  with  a  view  to  bringing 
before  students  in  schools  and  colleges  what  is  being  done  to 
promote  the  cause  of  universal  peace. 

The  Peace  Movement  is  now  beyond  the  sentimental  stage  and 
is  concerned  rather  with  ways  and  means.  Many  enthusiastic 
military  men  acknowledge  the  desirability  of  universal  peace. 
They  are  sceptical  merely  concerning  its  realization;  they  are 
sceptical  concerning  human  nature.  And  in  their  scepticism 
they  have  on  their  side  the  overwhelming  power  of  tradition.  But 
reformers  are  the  enemies  of  the  past,  and  no  great  reform  has 
ever  been  consummated  without  breaking  with  tradition. 

The  average  boy  is  a  very  militant  figure.  Any  theory  of 
passive  non-resistance  makes  no  appeal  to  him  whatever.  It 
will  be  recalled  that  when  some  of  the  early  Germanic  versions 


•0./& 


94  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  the  Gospels  were  made  by  the  devout  missionaries,  it  was 
found  necessary  to  leave  out  all  reference  to  humility,  to  sub- 
mission, to  meekness.  Christ  was  represented  as  a  great  Lord 
surrounded  by  twelve  heroic  figures.  Only  gradually  was  it 
possible  to  teach  the  human  race  that  there  were  higher  triumphs 
than  military  triumphs.  In  the  thousand  or  more  years  that 
have  passed  since  the  childhood  of  Germanic  Christianity  this 
has  been  accomplished.  But  the  boy  remains  a  combative, 
struggling  type.  And  these  characteristics  constitute  some  of 
his  most  important  and  valuable  qualities.  It  would  be  unfor- 
tunate to  have  any  element  introduced  into  a  boy's  life  that  would 
lessen  his  energy,  his  power  of  initiative,  or  his  interest  in  coura- 
geous and  heroic  deeds.  I  doubt  whether  the  doctrine  of  peace 
merely  as  a  theory  makes  an  appeal  even  today  to  the  average 
boy,  but  the  facts  and  the  possibilities  the  practical  human  ad- 
vantages interest  him  profoundly  and  he  is  eager  to  learn  about 
them.  We  do  not  realize  how  little  is  known  even  today  by  our 
school  boys  or  even  by  the  man  in  the  street  of  the  great  things 
that  have  been  accomplished  by  the  workers  for  peace.  In  spite 
of  the  fact  that  boys  are  worshipers  of  storm  and  stress  they 
are  also  idealists  at  heart,  and  will  welcome  any  positive  help 
in  realizing  their  ideals.  Boys  cannot  accept  abstractions  which 
are  far  removed  from  their  experience  and  their  interests,  but 
they  will  receive  heartily  all  efforts  that  are  made  to  show  them 
the  reasonableness  of  this  great  historical  movement. 

Education  rests  upon  the  principle  that  childhood  and  youth 
is  the  period  when  information  is  acquired  upon  which  theories 
and  principles  are  later  developed.  I  should  then  advocate  in 
all  efforts  to  interest  boys  in  the  Peace  Movement  that  attention 
be  paid  first  to  the  practical  features  and  the  historical  features 
of  what  has  been  accomplished,  and  of  what  is  being  accom- 
plished. It  is  not  generally  realized  that  our  anti-military  efforts 
are  a  part  of  a  great  humanitarian  movement  which  dates  from 
the  birth  of  Christ  and  which  has  its  ramifications  in  every  depart- 
ment of  human  society.  Certainly  boys  do  not  realize  that  the 
prevention  of  a  war  in  which  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  may 
be  killed  is  more  logical  than  the  prevention  of  disease.  They 
do  not  realize  that  the  great  philanthropist  who  endows  an  insti- 


\ 


BAKER  95 

tution  whose  object  is  the  prevention  of  war  is  attempting  a 
greater  task  than  the  man  of  wealth  who  devotes  his  fortune 
to  the  prevention  and  cure  of  disease.  The  prevention  of  war 
would  seem  to  be  the  crowning  victory  for  which  humanitarian- 
ism  has  fought  during  the  nineteen  hundred  years  of  its  history. 
The  relation  between  the  Peace  Movement  and  education  is  then 
concerned  first  with  this  idea  of  the  historical  sequence  that  is 
implied  in  the  very  existence  of  this  congress. 

Furthermore,  education  in  its  relation  to  peace  should  dissem- 
inate a  knowledge  of  what  is  being  done.  It  need  concern  itself 
very  little  with  the  arousing  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  peace.  This 
will  take  care  of  itself  when  it  is  realized  that  much  has  already 
been  accomplished,  and  very  definite  and  very  practical  plans 
are  being  considered  at  the  present  time  to  further  the  aims  of 
such  a  congress  as  this.  The  world  of  the  schools  does  not  yet 
know  the  full  significance  of  The  Hague  Conferences,  of  such 
expressions  as  "Federation  of  the  World,"  "Courts  of  Arbitra- 
tion," "Treaties  of  Arbitration."  It  is,  however,  not  sufficient 
to  present  what  has  been  accomplished  by  the  movement;  the 
world  should  be  told  very  fully  of  what  remains  to  be  done  and  the 
gigantic  difl&culties  that  remain  to  be  overcome.  It  is  a  subject 
that  admits  of  vast  flights  of  eloquence  but  it  is  unfair  especially 
to  young  people  to  have  the  presentation  one-sided  and  to  gloss 
over  in  any  way  the  great  struggles  that  must  yet  be  won.  Great 
ideals  are  much  more  effective  when  they  are  promoted  by  prac- 
tical men,  and  this  fact  should  never  be  lost  sight  of  in  every- 
thing that  the  cause  of  education  is  called  upon  to  do  in  favor 
of  promoting  universal  peace.  The  world  must  know  about  the 
realities  and  the  difficulties  which  are  to  be  met.  With  Bismarck 
dead  only  thirteen  years  it  is  obvious  that  much  hard  and  de- 
tailed work  and  much  serious  thought  must  be  devoted  to  the 
realization  of  the  ideal. 

Chairman  Remsen:  I  shall  call  upon  Mr.  Edwin  M.  Bor- 
chard,  the  Law  Librarian,  in  Washington,  who  was  the  expert  on 
international  law  in  the  North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  arbi- 
tration, and  who  will  speak  on  "Peace,  its  Evolution  and  Present 
Status." 


0^ 


96  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

PEACE— ITS  EVOLUTION  AND  PRESENT  STATUS 

EDWIN   M.    BORCHARD 

The  progress  made  in  the  last  twelve  years  by  international 
law  and  its  corollary,  the  movement  for  peace,  has  been  nothing 
short  of  remarkable.  And  yet,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  history 
of  human  institutions,  it  is  a  natural  concomitant  of  advancing 
civilization.  The  development  of  international  law  and  rela- 
tions toward  a  condition  of  relative  peace  finds  close  analogy  in 
the  development  of  private  law.  Private  war  and  vengeance, 
which  once  enjoyed  legal  sanction,  are  now  considered  criminal; 
it  is  our  desire  to  bring  public  war  under  the  same  opprobrium. 
When  the  thinkers  of  the  present  day,  who  even  now  regard  war 
as  unmoral,  shall  have  convinced  the  large  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  civilized  world  that  it  is  unmoral,  and  that  the  economic 
and  industrial  welfare  of  mankind  depends  absolutely  upon  pro- 
viding international  peace  with  a  legal  sanction,  war  will  have 
taken  its  place  among  the  illegal  agencies  for  settling  international 
differences. 

I. 

The  peace  we  now  enjoy  in  our  private  relations  is  directly 
attributable  to  the  gradual  perfection  of  our  legal  institutions. 
The  relative  peace  under  which  we  live  in  our  international  rela- 
tions has  been  largely  brought  about  by  the  development  of 
international  law.  The  road  by  which  private  peace  was  secured 
was  a  long  and  thorny  one;  and  there  are  many  indications  that 
we  still  have  a  long  road,  precarious  and  full  of  pitfalls,  to  travel 
before  we  shall  have  registered  our  arrival  at  the  final  goal  of 
international  peace. 

Misunderstanding  of  the  facts  as  they  exist,  a  misconception 
of  the  nature,  hereditary  instincts  and  history  of  the  international 
society  whose  ills  we  desire  to  cure  is  the  greatest  danger  con- 
fronting the  Peace  Movement.  Henry  IV  with  his  Great  Design 
for  a  European  Confederation  and  James  Mill  who  two  centuries 
ago  advocated  an  international  tribunal,  with  general  disarma- 
ment as  a  preliminary,  and  others  after  them,  made  the  great 


BORCHARD  97 

mistakes  of  not  taking  into  account  the  existing  facts,  and  seeking 
to  regenerate  society  at  one  bold  stroke.  War  is  too  ancient  an 
evil  to  submit  to  any  single  panacea. 

At  the  present  time,  however,  we  have  reached  a  point  where 
remedies  can  be  suggested  and  applied  with  an  assurance  of  their 
reasonable  consideration  by  states;  and  with  the  growth  of  an 
international  public  opinion  in  their  favor,  an  assurance  of  their 
ultimate  acceptance.  Various  remedies  for  settling  international 
differences  have  been  suggested;  the  most  effective  in  practice 
has  been  a  court  of  arbitration,  or  court  of  justice. 

Private  individuals  did  not  always  display  their  present  will- 
ingness to  submit  their  disputes  to  the  arbitrament  of  courts. 
The  struggle  was  a  long  one  and  fiercely  waged,  extending  from 
the  beginning  of  history  until  modern  times.  But  old  as  are  the 
beginnings  of  society — tribal  relations — international  society 
in  such  form  as  we  can  recognize  it  did  not  begin  until  two  or 
three  thousand  years  later.  It  is  therefore  natural  that  it  will 
take  a  little  longer  to  arrive  at  the  same  stage  of  social  develop- 
ment that  our  private  relations  have  reached,  but  the  analogies 
between  the  two  are  clearly  traceable. 

The  bond  of  primitive  society  was  kinship.  The  first  stage  in 
the  social  relations  between  the  units  of  that  society  is  marked  by 
universal  belligerency,  a  very  natural  rule.  Disputes  were 
accompanied  by  a  limitless  resort  to  private  war  and  private 
vengeance.  Such  action  was  unrestrained  by  any  humanizing 
agencies,  uncontrolled  by  any  superior,  and  unlimited  in  its  devas- 
tating effects. 

In  the  international  society,  some  analogy  to  this  first  stage 
may  be  discovered  in  the  utter  license  and  unrestrained  cruelty 
with  which  the  wars  of  the  Reformation  were  waged — the  period 
when  the  modern  society  of  states  had  its  origin.  This  very 
barbarity  had  much  to  do  with  the  writing  by  Grotius  of  his 
epoch-making  work,  in  which  the  beginnings  of  a  system  of  inter- 
national law  are  presented. 

The  second  stage  in  private  relations  discloses  a  gradual  limita- 
tion upon  the  waging  of  private  war,  by  confining  vengeance  to 
certain  members  of  the  family  or  kindred,  by  restricting  it  to 


98  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

certain  offenses  and  by  inaugurating  a  system  by  which  pecuniary 
compensation  for  minor  offenses  could  be  paid.  Sir  Henry  Maine 
regards  these  money  fines  for  private  wrongs,  such  as  the  Wehrgeld 
of  the  Germans  and  the  Eric  fine  of  the  ancient  Irish,  as  evidence 
of  a  very  early  conscious  effort  to  prevent  war  or  mitigate  it. 
Pollock  and  Maitland  suggest  that  the  amount  of  compensation 
was  probably  fixed  by  some  form  of  arbitration. 

This  second  stage  in  international  relations  is  marked  by  the 
introduction  of  humanizing  agencies  in  war,  first  through  the 
influence  of  great  writers,  principally  Grotius  and  Vattel,  then 
through  the  influence  of  progressive  civilization  and  the  growing 
wisdom  of  states.  Such  agencies  are  exemplified  in  the  codifica- 
tion of  the  rules  of  neutrality  and  the  rules  of  war  principally  in 
ameliorating  its  hardships.  This  was  largely  the  work  of  the 
Geneva,  Brussels,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Hague  Conferences. 

The  third  stage  in  private  relations  is  marked  by  the  growth 
of  the  kingly  power  and  the  gradual  waning  of  the  self-helping 
autonomy  of  the  kindred.  As  Maitland  remarks  "private  war 
is  controlled,  regulated  and  put  into  legal  harness."  In  this 
period  we  find  the  beginnings  of  a  system  by  which  an  issue  is 
submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  some  impartial  agency.  Private 
vengeance,  however,  was  not  abolished,  but  merely  regulated. 
The  king  was  not  yet  strong  enough  to  compel  his  warring  sub- 
jects to  come  before  the  court;  but  side  by  side  with  regulated 
private  war  there  grew  up  a  system  of  trial,  by  battle,  by  com- 
purgation, and  later  by  jury.  But  the  institution  was  weak; 
there  was  no  jurisdiction  save  by  consent  of  the  parties.  As 
the  king  grew  stronger,  a  scale  of  compensation  for  injuries,  a  sort 
of  tariff  was  decreed.  Compensation  had  to  be  accepted,  if 
offered,  and  private  war  was  lawful  only  when  the  adversary  ob- 
stinately refused  to  do  right.  [Heinrich  Brunner  gives  an  able 
presentation  of  the  difficulties  in  the  path  of  the  judicial  adjust- 
ment of  private  disputes.] 

International  relations  in  this  third  stage  are  exemplified  by 
the  coordinate  existence  of  a  regulated  public  war  and  a  system 
of  international  arbitration,  our  present  condition. 

From   the  conflict   between  the   two  agencies  in  our  private 


B ORCHARD  99 

relations,  private  war  and  the  courts,  the  judicial  method  emerged 
victorious;  and  the  fourth  stage  finds  us  practically  under  the 
full  dominion  of  a  judicial  method  of  adjusting  our  private  dis- 
putes. Among  the  systems  of  trial,  however,  trial  by  jury  had  to 
carry  on  a  fierce  struggle  for  supremacy  with  trial  by  battle.  The 
prevalence  of  perjury  and  other  disadvantages  influenced  a  prefer- 
ence for  trial  by  battle,  even  long  after  trial  by  jury  had  been 
established.  It  is  a  mistake,  too,  to  assume  that  trial  by  battle 
did  not  satisfy  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  litigants.  It  did.  They 
believed  that  an  impartial  spirit  was  acting  as  judge,  who  in 
letting  fall  the  mantle  of  victory,  indicated  the  right.  But  super- 
stition has  given  way  to  reason.  We  now  realize  that  a  belliger- 
ent method  of  settling  controversies  does  not  do  justice;  that  is 
why  arbitration  is  replacing  war  as  the  only  equitable  agency  for 
adjusting  an  international  difference. 

The  analogies  we  have  traced,  in  particular  the  evolution  from 
the  third  into  the  fourth  stage  in  private  law,  give  us  every  reason 
to  believe  that  the  conflict  between  the  two  agencies  on  the  inter- 
national side,  public  war  and  arbitration,  will  result  in  a  victory  for 
the  judicial  system,  and  that  a  submission  to  the  arbitrament 
of  judicial  agencies  will  take  its  place  among  our  permanent  social 
institutions. 

n 

Peace  in  the  international  community  is  a  social  need.  States 
were  never  so  willing  as  now  to  listen  to  practical  suggestions  for 
its  realization.  History  explains  the  reason.  With  the  break- 
up of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  and  the  destruction  of  the  idea  of 
universal  sovereignty,  of  a  common  superior,  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, a  chaos  resulted,  exemplified  in  the  horrible  wars  of  the 
Reformation.  From  that  time  until  the  Congress  of  Vienna  in 
181 5,  the  states  of  Europe  were  engaged  in  a  tremendous  struggle 
of  territorial  adjustment.  The  influence  of  Grotius,  which  first 
bore  distinct  fruit  at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  brought  certain 
rules  into  this  process  of  adjustment,  but  the  ideal  of  international 
peace  engaged  thinkers  and  not  statesmen. 

The  nineteenth  century,  however,  was  marked  by  a  movement 


lOO  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

for  national  unification  throughout  the  world,  and  while  the  force 
of  arms  played  a  small  part  in  this  nationalization,  commerce 
and  industry  were  the  great  factors  in  the  process.  This  century 
witnessed  the  most  important  changes  in  the  legal  position  of 
aliens.  From  his  original  status  as  an  enemy  eo  nomine,  the  alien 
has  gradually  become  practically  assimilated  to  the  national  in 
his  legal  rights.  The  facilities  for  immigration  and  naturaliza- 
tion, and  rapid  communication,  have  brought  about  the  democrat- 
ization of  the  world,  cosmopolitanism.  With  the  growth  of  social 
^  and  commercial  intercourse  among  nations,  the  discoveries  of 
science,  and  the  extreme  mobility  of  capital,  nations  have  come 
to  recognize  the  unity  of  their  interests.  An  international  con- 
sciousness has  been  awakened.  The  result  has  been  a  growing 
solidarity  of  international  organization.  This  present  century  is 
to  be  one  of  international  development  or  as  Prof.  Lorimer  puts 
it,  "from  independence  has  emerged  interdependence."  Inter- 
national law  has  kept  pace  with  the  necessities  of  the  new  order, 
as  is  shown  by  the  great  number  of  international  conferences 
during  the  last  thirty  years.  The  many  international  unions 
and  agreements  on  industrial,  economic,  scientific  and  legal  mat- 
ters indicate  that  nations  have  become  convinced  of  the  necessity 
for  cooperation  and  international  arrangements  of  an  adminis- 
trative nature.  In  addition  almost  two  hundred  international 
conferences  of  an  unofficial  character  within  the  last  seventy 
years,  covering  almost  all  fields  of  human  thought  and  activity, 
are  evidence  of  the  solidarity  of  world  interests. 

It  is  therefore  apparent  why  war  is  now  a  greater  catastrophe 
than  ever  before.  While  we  have  been  endeavoring  to  localize 
war  by  enlarging  the  obligations  of  neutrals — and  much  still 
remains  to  be  done  along  this  line — it  is  nevertheless  true  that  a 
public  war  between  any  of  the  units  of  the  international  commun- 
ity shakes  the  security  of  the  entire  structure  and  impairs  the 
welfare  of  all.  It  is  therefore  not  difficult  to  realize  why  all 
states  are  now  willing  to  cooperate  to  prevent  an  international 
war  and  adopt  the  necessary  means  to  this  end. 

No  society  can  exist  without  some  rules  for  the  conduct  and 
mutual  intercourse  of  its  members.     Just  as  the  judicial  order  of 


BORCHARD  lOI 

national  life  springs  from,  at  the  same  time  that  it  ministers  to, 
its  development,  so  has  international  arbitration  proved  itself 
to  be  a  factor  in  the  development  of  the  society  of  nations,  which 
has  made  it  possible  and  of  which  it  is  the  outcome.  Yet  up  to 
the  present  time  statesmen  and  lawyers  believe  that  arbitration 
has  its  limitations.  As  we  have  said  there  exists  in  the  inter- 
national society  a  body  of  rules  or  a  modus  vivendi  for  the  conduct 
of  its  members.  Westlake  points  out  that  a  claim  by  one  state 
against  another  for  a  breach  of  this  modus  vivendi  resembles  very 
much  a  claim  of  one  individual  against  another  before  national 
courts  of  justice,  for  both  deal  with  legal  relations.  These  claims 
are  eminently  fitted  for  arbitration.  The  action  of  states,  how- 
ever, is  not  confined  within  these  legal  limits.  They  must 
sometimes  act  under  circumstances  where  there  are  no  rules.  A 
situation  of  this  kind  in  private  life  is  met  by  the  national  legis- 
lature enacting  new  legislation.  In  the  absence  of  an  inter- 
national legislature  or  immediate  agreement  on  a  rule,  states 
must  act  for  themselves,  and  it  is  in  these  spheres  that  we  find 
what  is  called  the  political  action  of  states,  or  international  policy. 
The  Russian  delegates  to  the  First  Hague  Conference  pointed 
out  that  the  former  class,  legal  claims,  being  a  conflict  of  rights,  may 
appropriately  be  made  the  subject  of  an  arbitration;  but  that  the 
latter,  being  a  conflict  of  interests,  do  not  admit  of  this  method 
of  adjustment.  The  Russian  delegates  included  under  such 
political  questions  what  they  called  political  treaties,  transitory 
arrangements  between  states  which  bind  the  freedom  of  action  of 
the  parties  so  long  as  the  poHtical  conditions  which  produced  them 
remain  without  change.  Such  a  question  is  illustrated  in  Rus- 
sia's own  history.  At  the  end  of  the  Crimean  War  Russia,  ex- 
hausted, was  compelled  to  submit  to  a  treaty  in  which  she  engaged 
to  neutralize  the  Black  Sea,  and  to  maintain  no  fortifications  on 
the  coast.  In  187 1,  taking  advantage  of  the  disablement  of 
France,  she  denounced  the  treaty  and  proceeded  to  erect  a  forti- 
fication at  Sebastopol.  No  single  power  was  strong  enough  to 
prevent  her.  As  a  result  a  conference  was  held,  a  tribute  paid 
to  the  binding  (sic!)  character  of  treaties,  and  the  limitations  on 
Russia  removed  by  consent.     Could  such  a  question  have  been 


I02  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

arbitrated?  A  court  could  have  reached  but  one  conclusion. 
No  state  can,  by  an  unilateral  act,  legally  put  an  end  to  a  stipu- 
lation it  has  signed.  Russia,  therefore,  would  never  have  con- 
sented to  arbitrate  this  case.  Characterizing  it  as  a  political 
question,  Secretary  Hay  in  1904  considered  the  Panama  question 
with  Colombia  unarbitrable.  Would  we  arbitrate  our  right  to 
fortify  the  Panama  Canal,  if  the  right  were  brought  in  question? 
Such  matters  as  these  are  embodied  in  the  general  reservation  of 
"independence"  in  treaties  of  arbitration.  Questions  of  honor 
can  be  arbitrated.  This  is  shown  by  the  duel  in  the  German 
army,  where  the  question  of  violated  honor  must  first  be  passed 
upon  by  a  court  of  officers  before  the  duel  is  allowed  to  be  fought. 
When  an  enlightened  public  opinion  will  induce  states  to  add  to 
the  functions  of  an  arbitrator,  those  of  a  mediator,  even  such 
political  questions  will,  I  think,  be  arbitrated.  But  first,  sense- 
less nationalistic  pride  must  be  abandoned,  fair  dealing  and  good 
faith  assured  by  international  guaranty,  and  confidence  in  arbi- 
trators and  mediators  strengthened. 

Even  now  where  independence  or  freedom  of  action  is  not  likely 
to  be  affected  by  an  unfavorable  decision  some  states  have  con- 
sidered it  perfectly  safe  to  conclude  arbitration  treaties  without 
reservation;  as  for  example,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Italy  and  Hol- 
land, Chile  and  Argentine  and  other  states.  The  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  are  about  to  undertake  a  step  along  this  line, 
which  by  its  example  will  give  an  unprecedented  stimulus  to  the 
cause. 

[Those  who  attended  the  recent  Fisheries  Arbitration  at  The 
Hague  and  witnessed  the  cordial  relations  between  opposing 
counsel,  can  easily  be  convinced  that  there  will  never  be  a  war 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  It  is  a  matter  of 
temperament  and  good  common  sense,  which  will  always  predom- 
inate to  prevent  a  rupture  of  friendly  relations.] 

In  the  time  of  the  great  Empires,  the  Egyptian,  the  Assyrian, 
the  Median  and  the  Roman,  peace  was  fairly  well  maintained  by 
the  power  of  arms  of  a  strong  central  superior.  The  Emperor 
compelled  his  constituent  tribes  to  refrain  from  hostilities,  and 
there  was  comparative  peace. 


BORCHARD  IO3 

We  in  the  present  day  are  dealing  with  a  different  order  of  inter- 
national society.  We  desire  to  erect  another  power,  an  intel- 
lectual power,  to  induce  and  exercise  coercive  influence  among 
states  to  bring  about  international  peace.  This  intelligence  has 
already  created  methods  to  avert  war  by  means  other  than  the 
fearful  expenditures  now  undertaken  in  preparation  for  peace, 
as  some  would  have  it. 

First,  reason  and  intelligence  have  aided  in  establishing  good 
faith  between  nations.  This  alone  has  placed  diplomacy  on  a 
higher  and  more  effective  plane  than  ever  before  in  adjusting 
international  differences. 

•  Secondly,  the  Congress  of  Paris  of  1856  and  The  Hague  Con- 
ferences have  succeeded  in  giving  mediation  a  more  potent  influ- 
ence in  adjusting  disputes  than  it  ever  enjoyed  before.  Formerly 
regarded  as  officious  intermeddling,  it  has  now  secured  legal  sanc- 
tion and  can  no  longer  be  considered  an  unfriendly  act.  Where 
the  opportunities  for  the  arbitration  of  legal  differences  are  now 
considered  as  exhausted,  mediation  has  unlimited  possibilities 
in  adjusting  all  kinds  of  international  disputes.  In  South  America 
on  three  occasions  it  has  proved  its  great  value. 

Disputed  questions  of  fact  are  recognized  as  a  most  dangerous 
and  virulent  cause  of  war.  The  Hague  Conference,  thirdly,  then 
created  the  machinery  for  settling  such  questions  by  Commissions 
of  Inquiry.  The  use  of  this  instrumentality  has  already  pre- 
vented one  war  (between  Russia  and  Great  Britain),  and  will 
probably  show  its  usefulness  on  many  other  occasions.  Had  our 
people  exhibited  more  self-restraint  in  1898,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  such  a  Commission  of  Inquiry  might  have  prevented  the 
Spanish-American  War. 

The  fourth  great  agency  to  prevent  war  is  international  arbi- 
tration, to  which  we  have  already  referred.  Arbitration  in  some 
form  is  as  old  as  history,  and  toward  its  immediate  development 
and  improvement  every  effort  should  be  bent.  As  the  architects 
of  this  powerful  social  institution.  The  Hague  Conferences  will 
have  left  their  immortal  justification,  both  in  enlarging  the  scope 
of  the  questions  which  may  be  submitted  and  in  improving  the 
machinery. 


I04  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

For  its  successful  operation,  confidence  in  arbitrators  is,  of 
course,  a  condition  precedent.  But  the  very  fundamental  con- 
dition on  which  arbitral  justice  rests,  the  most  effective  means 
of  fostering  international  peace  is  education,  the  education  of 
public  sentiment.  The  resort  to  arbitration  must  find  its  sanc- 
tion in  a  compelling  public  opinion,  before  it  can  become  positive 
law.  The  time  is  ripe  for  it.  The  democratization  of  the  world 
has  taken  war  out  of  the  hands  of  kings  for  the  satisfaction  of 
personal  and  dynastic  ambitions,  and  passed  it  into  the  control 
of  peoples.  Ignorance,  contemptuous  conduct,  ill-temper,  resent- 
ment, or  fury  are  now  the  principal  causes  of  war.  Psychothera- 
peutics constitute  the  most  essential  element  in  the  remedy. 
The  education  of  the  people  of  the  world,  the  people  that  now 
pay  for  battleships,  must  be  aided  by  an  enlightened  press  which 
will  forego  the  sensational,  and  recognize  and  assume  its  grave 
responsibilities  in  the  movement.  The  force  of  education  when 
aimed  at  developing  self-control,  self-restraint  and  a  habit  of 
thought  that  will  compel  a  submission  of  disputes  to  peaceful 
settlement,  will  be  the  principal  factor  by  which  the  Peace  Move- 
ment can  achieve  the  success  so  earnestly  desired. 

Every  actual  instance  of  arbitration  confirms  the  habit  and 
rivets  the  bonds  of  international  peace.  If  people  can  be  brought 
to  realize  that  this  is  a  better  and  more  equitable  method  of 
adjusting  their  differences  than  by  going  to  war,  the  problem  of 
armaments  will  no  longer  trouble  peoples  and  statesmen.  When 
enlightened  public  opinion  will  compel  governments  to  make  use 
of  the  improved  instrumentalities  for  removing  causes  of  friction 
and  settling  controversies,  nations  will  realize  that  enormous 
armies  and  navies  are  no  longer  necessary.  It  is  to  prove  the 
existence  of  conditions  which  make  these  vast  armaments  no 
longer  a  necessity  that  congresses  such  as  this  assemble.  When 
this  conviction  makes  its  impress  on  the  world  we  will  have 
reached  the  goal  of  international  peace. 

In  the  absence  of  Mr.  W.  O.  Hart,  of  New  Orleans,  La.,  his 
paper  on  "Universal  Peace  Impossible  without  an  International 
Code"  was  not  read.  It  is  printed  herewith  as  part  of  the  Proceed- 
ings. 


HART  105 

UNIVERSAL  PEACE  IMPOSSIBLE  WITHOUT  AN 
INTERNATIONAL  CODE 

W.    O.    HART 

To  say  that  I  felt  myself  highly  honored  when  I  received  an 
invitation  to  read  a  paper  before  this  distinguished  gathering, 
would  be  to  express  my  feelings  very  mildly,  but,  on  the  whole, 
I  feel  the  compliment  is  due  more  to  my  section  of  the  country 
than  to  myself  as  an  individual.  Be  this  as  it  may,  however, 
I  feel  that  I  was  further  honored  when  I  was  allowed  to  choose 
my  own  subject,  and  though  for  a  time  I  hesitated  as  to  this  and 
asked  for  suggestions  from  the  Committee  in  charge  of  the  Con- 
gress, on  further  reflection  I  concluded  not  to  use  any  of  their 
suggestions  (which,  by  the  way,  covered  several  subjects  upon 
which  I  have  heretofore  read  papers),  but  to  make  my  own  selec- 
tion, with  the  result  that  the  title  of  my  paper  is  as  given  above: 
Universal  Peace   Impossible  without  an  International   Code. 

Since  selecting  this  title  I  have  several  times  felt  that  I  had 
chosen  a  subject  beyond  my  powers  to  properly  discuss,  but 
I  have  done  the  best  possible,  and  if  anything  I  am  able  to 
say  may  induce  others,  better  fitted  than  I  to  discuss  the  subject, 
to  enter  upon  a  discussion  thereof,  then  I  shall  feel  that  my  efforts 
have  been  amply  rewarded. 

At  the  outset,  let  me  say  that  I  approach  my  chosen  subject 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  Louisiana  lawyer.  We  lawyers  of  Loui- 
siana believe  that  our  Civil  Code  is  the  greatest  book  that  ever 
came  from  the  hand  of  man,  for,  notwithstanding  the  criticism 
that  is  sometimes  made  of  it,  and  often  by  our  own  lawyers,  par- 
ticularly when  the  Supreme  Court  disagrees  with  them  upon  the 
construction  to  be  placed  upon  some  Article  of  the  Code,  it  is  a 
scientific  embodiment  of  concrete  law  meeting  almost  every  rela- 
tion of  human  life  and  providing  for  almost  every  duty  and  obli- 
gation which  a  man  owes  to  his  family,  his  fellows,  and  his  State. 
Every  enactment  of  uniform  laws,  such  as  the  negotiable  instru- 
ment law,  the  uniform  warehouse  law,  the  uniform  bill  of  lading 
law,  and  others,  is  a  compliment  to  the  law  of  Louisiana,  because 


I06  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

these  uniform  laws  are  codes,  limited,  of  course,  to  the  subjects 
of  which  they  treat  but,  nevertheless,  a  compilation  in  connected 
form,  of  the  best  thought  of  lawyers  and  judges  on  the  subject. 
When,  two  years  ago,  the  American  Society  of  International  Law 
discussed  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  draft  an  Interna- 
tional Code,  I  took  occasion,  in  speaking  to  the  motion  to  appoint 
the  committee,  to  refer  to  our  Civil  Code  and  to  show  how  it  was 
being  followed  throughout  the  country,  and  that  the  contemplated 
action  of  the  International  Society  was  on  the  same  lines. 

Of  course  the  Code  which  the  International  Society  will  finally 
prepare,    will   represent   but   the   voluntary  suggestive  act  of   a 
distinguished  body  of  publicists  and  International  Law  students. 
No  government  has  authorized  the  preparation  of  this  Code,  and 
no  government  is  bound  to  consider,  much  less  adopt  it;  but  from 
the  character  of  the  men  who  are  doing  the  work,  and  from  the 
character  of  those  who  compose  the  Society,  it  goes  without  say- 
ing that  when  the  Society  is  able  to  send  out  its  Code  it  will  re- 
ceive careful  consideration  from  the  sovereign  nations  of  the  world, 
just  as,  when  the  draft  of  a  uniform  State  law  is  sent  out  by  the 
National   Conference  of   Commissioners  on  Uniform  State  Laws, 
it  receives  consideration  from  the  legislatures  of  States  and  Ter- 
ritories and  from  Congress  for  the  District  of  Columbia.    While 
several  of  the  uniform  laws  have  been  adopted  in  but  few  states, 
the  number  is  increasing  gradually,   and  the  negotiable  instru- 
ment law  is  the  law  on  that  important  subject  of  about  four-fifths 
of  this  country  in  extent  of  territory,  about  nine-tenths  in  popula- 
tion, and  about  ninety-nine  hundredths  in  business  transactions. 

But  my  ideas  of  an  international  code  and  the  thoughts  which 
I  desire  to  present  in  this  paper  are  rather  of  a  different,  and 
certainly  of  a  more  extended  character.  I  believe  that  universal 
peace  and  the  absence  of  war  will  be  brought  about  not  by  arbi- 
tration proceedings,  not  by  courts  to  try  cases  made  up  for  the 
purposes  of  trial,  but  when  the  nations  are  bound  together  uni- 
versally, by  a  code  of  laws  providing  in  advance  for  every  possible 
contingency  that  may  arise,  and  leaving  only  to  the  universal 
court  the  duty  of  applying  to  the  particular  facts  of  the  case,  the 
principles  which  have  been  established  'n  advance  by  the  code. 


HART  107 

We  all  know  that  the  present  system  of  courts  represents  evolu- 
tion from  the  most  primitive  tribunals,  and  we  all  know  that 
when  courts  were  first  established,  crude  and  simple  as  they  were, 
an  agreement  in  each  case  was  necessary  between  the  parties  as 
to  how  the  court  should  proceed.  But  as  civilization  and  com- 
merce progressed  it  was  found  that  this  was  unsatisfactory  and 
inefficient,  and  gradually  laws  were  established  in  advance  until 
now  every  civilized  state  has  a  complete  system  of  laws  of  its 
own,  and  almost  without  exception,  the  laws  of  each  country, 
in  so  far  as  the  proceedings  in  its  courts  are  concerned,  are  recog- 
nized in  every  other  country.  It  is  an  extreme  case  when  a 
judgment  rendered  in  one  country  is  not  given  some  effect  in 
other  countries,  if,  to  put  it  in  force,  the  courts  of  other  coun- 
tries must  be  appealed  to. 

Now  if  the  leading  nations  of  the  world,  eight  in  number,  let 
us  say,  agree,  through  a  commission  or  a  committee,  or  even  a 
parliament  of  the  world,  to  provide  for  the  preparation  of  an  inter- 
national code  which  shall  fix  the  relations  between  countries  and 
the  citizens  thereof  in  their  sovereign  or  quasi-sovereign  capaci- 
ties, just  as  the  codes  and  other  forms  of  law  regulate  individuals 
of  the  different  states,  and  this  code  should  be  adopted  by  these 
countries  and  the  adoption  carried  with  it  a  provision  that  no 
part  could  be  abrogated  or  amended  except  by  a  vote  of  the  major- 
ity of  the  countries  represented,  and  that  this  code  should  pro- 
hibit a  resort  to  arms  for  the  redress  of  any  grievances,  do  we  not 
see  at  once,  that  the  era  of  universal  peace  would  immediately 
arrive? 

The  laws  of  all  civilized  countries  prohibit  a  man  from  taking 
the  law  into  his  own  hands,  no  matter  what  the  provocation  or 
what  the  character  of  his  complaint.  He  must  resort  to  the  courts 
of  his  country,  and  if  he  defies  the  law  and  attempts  to  act  for  him- 
self outside  of  the  law,  he  at  once  becomes  a  criminal  and  subjects 
himself  to  punishment,  and  so  it  would  be  with  any  of  the  nations 
that  had  agreed  to  the  international  code.  If  any  of  them 
should  attempt  to  bring  on  war  or  do  violence  to  the  citizens  or 
property  of  another  country,  all  the  other  countries  which  had 
adopted  the  code   would    step  in  and  require  the  recalcitrant 


Io8  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

country  to  hold  oflF  and  submit  its  cause  to  the  international  court, 
provided  by  the  code.  Every  country  has  among  its  people, 
whether  citizens  or  sojourners,  what  is  definitely  termed  the  crimi- 
nal element,  as  well  as  the  degenerate,  the  degraded  and  the  irre- 
sponsible, and  when  these  attempt  to  evade  the  law  or  to  do 
violence  outside  the  law,  the  substantial  element  represented  by 
its  law  abiding  citizens,  the  courts,  the  executive  oflBicers  thereof 
and  of  the  state,  compel  all  these  persons  to  obey  the  law  or 
suffer  the  consequences;  and  so  it  would  be  with  an  international 
code  and  an  international  court.  All  countries  might  not  agree 
to  it,  but  those  which  do  not  would  be  forced  to  become  law 
abiding  or  to  submit,  just  as  those  individuals  who  attempt  to 
defy  the  municipal  law,  or  who  say  there  is  no  law,  or  who  claim 
to  be  above  the  law,  are  forced  to  obey  the  law,  or  violate  it  at 
their  peril. 

It  has  been  said  that  universal  peace  is  impossible  because 
many  wars  are  brought  about  through  the  inordinate  ambition  of 
rulers  or  military  men,  and  that  such  conditions  cannot  be  fore- 
seen or  provided  for  in  advance,  but  why  can  they  not?  We  all 
know  that  at  one  time  in  many  countries,  the  duel  was  recognized 
as  a  method  of  settling  differences  where  the  honor,  so-called,  of 
one  of  the  parties  was  involved,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to 
punish  the  participants  in  a  duel,  even  though  it  should  result  in 
the  death  of  one  of  the  contestants,  but  now  the  civilized  world 
looks  with  horror  upon  the  duel,  and  to  kill  a  man  in  a  duel  is 
murder,  pure  and  simple,  and  while  perhaps,  owing  to  the  frailty 
of  human  nature,  punishment  as  for  murder  would  not  be  meted 
out  to  the  successful  duellist,  he  would  probably  receive  some 
punishment,  or,  if  he  did  not,  would  go  through  the  world  with 
the  brand  of  Cain,  hated  by  his  fellows,  a  wanderer  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth.  So  any  nation  which  would  not  obey  the  inter- 
national code,  would  place  itself  outside  the  pale  of  civilized 
people  and  could  be  punished  in  such  manner  as  the  code  provided, 
by  checking  intercourse,  by  stopping  diplomatic  relations,  and, 
shall  we  say  it,  stopping  its  commerce,  so  that  the  money  power 
would  come  into  play,  and,  if  all  other  means  failed,  commerce, 
or  perhaps  cupidity,  would  cause  the  observance  of  the  law. 


HART  109 

Territorial  aggrandizement  is,  of  course,  the  cause  of  many 
wars,  but  with  an  international  code  in  force,  the  seizure  of  the 
territory  of  another  country  would  be  impossible.  No  man  can 
legally  seize  a  piece  of  land  which  his  neighbor  controls  or  claims 
title  to,  upon  the  theory  that  he  has  a  better  title,  but  that  issue 
must  be  presented  to  a  court  for  determination.  As  it  is  now, 
almost  invariably  the  question  of  disputed  territory  is  referred 
to  arbitration  and  the  award  of  the  arbitrators  is  almost  univer- 
sally accepted.  But  submitting  a  matter  to  arbitration  is  not  the 
same  as  having  it  decided  on  the  basis  of  an  international  code, 
because,  as  before  stated,  the  code  would  provide  in  advance  for 
the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  and  the  method  by  which 
conflicting  claims  should  be  considered,  and,  being  arranged  in 
advance,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  prepare  an  agreement  to 
submit  the  case  to  the  court  under  the  rules  then,  for  the  first 
time,  agreed  upon;  and  any  nation  would  be  slow  to  claim  the  terri- 
tory of  another  unless  it  knew  or  had  good  reason  to  believe  that 
its  claims  were  well  founded  in  law,  the  law  of  the  international 
code.  The  neutrality  of  many  of  the  small  states  of  Europe,  for 
example,  is  assured  and  the  inviolability  of  their  territory  is  pre- 
served because  several  of  the  greater  nations  have  gotten  together 
and  guaranteed  it.  If  any  nation  should  attempt,  for  instance, 
to  seize  a  part  of  Switzerland,  whether  that  was  one  of  the  nations 
which  had  guaranteed  its  integrity  or  not,  the  other  nations  would 
speedily  prevent  the  attacking  nation  from  doing  anything  except 
giving  up  the  attack;  and  if  this  can  be  done  by  the  agreement  of 
several  nations  as  to  a  particular  country  it  could  be  done  univer- 
sally through  an  international  code. 

Questions  of  honor,  so-called,  between  nations  which  are 
excluded  sometimes  from  an  agreement  to  arbitrate,  would  cease 
to  exist,  in  large  measure,  if  there  were  an  international  code, 
just  as  the  so-called  code  of  honor  resulting  in  the  duel  no  longer 
exists.  The  code  could  provide  for  all  conditions,  and,  so  pro- 
viding, nations  not  party  to  it,  would  be  forced  to  observe  the 
law  as  laid  down  in  the  code. 

The  power  and  influence  of  the  larger  nations  grouped  together 
would  be  insurmountable,  just  as  the  word  of  the  United  States 


no  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

calling  into  effect  the  Monroe  doctrine,  prevents  any  nation  of 
Europe  or  Asia  acquiring  territory  on  the  western  hemisphere; 
and  if  one  nation,  though  the  greatest  on  the  earth,  is  powerful 
enough  against  the  rest  of  the  world  to  prevent  territorial  aggran- 
dizement at  the  expense  of  weaker  nations,  why  would  not  a 
combination  of  eight  or  more  of  the  greatest  nations  of  the  world 
compel  the  weaker  nations  to  observe  the  law,  just  as  the  weaker 
individual  in  the  state  must  observe  the  law  made  by  those  in 
authority?  It  is  all  very  well  to  say  that  universal  peace  is  the 
idea  of  dreamers,  but  why  should  it  be  necessary  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  rights  of  a  country,  that  it  should  kill  as  many  as  pos- 
sible of  the  inhabitants  of  another  country?  Might  is  not  always 
right,  and  the  successful  country  in  a  war  does  not  always  have 
right  on  its  side.  The  waste  of  militarism  is  awful  in  its  extent. 
The  soldier  produces  nothing  and  adds  nothing  to  the  wealth 
of  the  country,  but  is  only  a  consumer,  and  while  it  is  all  very 
well  to  say  that  the  principal  guarantee  of  peace  is  to  be  always 
ready  for  war,  if  there  is  to  be  no  war,  necessarily  there  must  be 
peace,  and  the  reign  of  law  binding  upon  the  nations  will  put 
an  end  to  war  and  bring  about  the  era  of  universal  peace.  No 
words  can  add  to  the  horrors  of  war,  and  its  uselessness  is  under- 
stood by  all. 

It  is  said  that  opposition  to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God,  and 
that  war  is  sometimes  necessary  to  enable  a  country  to  throw  off 
the  tyrant's  yoke.  This  may  have  been  the  case  in  times  past, 
but  there  are  no  longer  tyrants.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world 
today,  that  is  not,  in  theory,  well  governed,  and  if  there  were 
a  universal  code  and  a  universal  court,  a  despotic,  tyrannical, 
or  even  an  unjust  ruler,  might  be  removed,  just  as  a  president  or 
a  governor,  or  a  king  is  removed  today,  without  bloodshed  and 
without  war. 

A  practice  of  nearly  thirty-four  years  at  the  bar  has  brought 
me  to  the  conclusion,  (though  we  are  all  frequently  disappointed 
in  the  final  judgments  of  courts  upon  cases  which  we  have  in 
charge),  that  careful  study  and  reflection  will  convince  us  that,  in 
the  long  run,  the  courts  do  substantial  justice  in  all  cases.  Of 
course  there  are  exceptions  to  that  rule,  and  there  may  be  some 


HART  III 

cases  where  the  final  decision  represents  a  miscarriage  of  justice, 
but  they  are  few  and  far  between,  and  only  exist  because  no  human 
institution  can  be  perfect;  and  an  international  code  by  which 
all  the  great  nations  shall  be  bound,  and  an  international  court 
working  under  the  code,  the  decrees  of  which  all  nations  shall 
respect,  will,  in  the  end,  do  substantial  justice  to  all,  and  not  one 
man  would  have  to  be  killed  to  carry  out  the  decrees  of  the  court. 

I  may  be  an  enthusiast,  but  I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  the 
world  is  better  today  than  it  was  yesterday,  and  is  going  to  be 
still  better  tomorrow,  and  such  meetings  as  this  will  redound  to 
the  credit  of  all  connected  therewith.  We  may  not  see  the  results 
this  year  or  the  next;  we  may  not  live  to  see  them,  but  every 
meeting  in  the  interest  of  peace,  every  speech  on  the  subject  and 
every  publication,  hastens  the  day  when  peace  shall  be  universal. 
How  it  will  come,  no  man  can  say.  My  ideas  I  know  are  faulty 
and  may  be  impossible  of  execution,  but  I  think  no  one  will  gain- 
say me  when  I  give  the  opinion  that  if  they  could  be  carried  into 
effect,  the  result  that  we  are  striving  for  would  not  be  far  off. 

To  show  that  I  am  not  alone  in  my  ideas,  I  beg  to  close  this 
paper  with  a  review  of  a  recent  book  by  the  well-known  author, 
Mons.  E.  Duplessis,  entitled.  International  Organization.  This 
review  I  had  not  seen  (and  I  have  never  seen  the  book)  until  the 
foregoing  had  been  written.     The  reviewer  says: 

''This  book  is  a  commentary  upon  a  preceding  work  in  which 
the  author  developed  the  idea  of  the  formation  of  an  association 
among  all  the  civilized  communities,  ruled  by  a  common  code. 
In  this  new  book,  after  having  set  forth  the  causes  of  the  develop- 
ment of  internationalism  and  its  results  with  respect  to  the  prog- 
ress of  industry  and  of  intellectual  property,  he  indicates  its 
ruling  ideas;  the  international  association  should  have  for  its 
object,  necessity,  justice,  and  certain  interests  of  intellectual  and 
economic  order.  It  should  guarantee  to  each  state,  its  territory 
and  should  prevent  its  dismemberment.  With  respect  to  justice 
there  should  be  something  better  than  the  tribunal  of  arbitration, 
such  as  operates  at  present;  the  present  institution  furnishes 
no  guarantee  to  government,  each  state  selecting  its  arbitrator 
from  a  list  prepared  in  advance,  from  among  those  which  it  sup- 


112  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

poses  would  be  favorable  to  it;  the  umpire,  who  acts  in  case  of  a 
tie,  is  independent,  but  his  responsibility  is  too  great.  The 
arbitrators  are  guided  by  no  law;  temporary  judges,  they  are 
unable  to  establish  a  jurisprudence;  their  jurisdiction  does  not 
attach  to  those  who  refuse  to  appear  before  them;  they  cannot 
execute  their  decrees.  Therefore  there  should  be  instituted  an 
international  court,  whose  organization  should  be  preceded  by  the 
elaboration  of  a  law  concerning  international  relations.  The 
members  of  this  tribunal  should  be  supplied  in  equitable  propor- 
tion by  all  the  states  composing  the  association  of  nations;  they 
should  be  chosen  from  experts  in  international  law  and  not  from 
diplomats  and  politicians;  they  should  be  numerous;  they  should 
hold  their  offices  permanently,  and  should  reside  where  the  tri- 
bunal is  held;  finally,  their  decisions  should  be  obligatory  upon  all 
nations.  The  sanctions  of  their  decisions  should  be  moral,  such  as 
admonition,  censure,  restitution,  moral  and  pecuniary  reparation, 
exclusion  from  the  association;  and  coercitive,  such  as  economic 
blockade,  intervention  of  the  international  police.  The  estab- 
lishment of  an  international  police  would  have  as  its  corollary 
general  disarmament." 

After  various  notices,  Chairman  Remsen  announced,  "On  this 
copy  of  the  program  which  was  handed  to  me  I  find  the  words,  in 
familiar  handwriting,  "Discussion,  if  time  therefor."  I  declare 
this  meeting  adjourned,  as  the  hour  is  late. 


THIRD  SESSION 

The  Third  Session  of  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress  was 
called  to  order  Thursday  morning,  May  4th,  at  10  o'clock  in 
McCoy  Hall,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  by  the  Presiding  Officer, 
Hon.  Huntington  Wilson,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State. 

Chairman  Wilson  delivered  the  following  address: 

ADDRESS   OF  THE  HON.   HUNTINGTON    WILSON 

Gentlemen  of  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress:  Those 
who  work  in  the  Department  of  State  and  Foreign  Service  ordi- 
narily do  not  talk  much  of  peace  except  when  war  threatens 
some  other  country.  I  am  proud  to  be  connected  with  an  admin- 
istration which  within  two  years  has  actually  prevented  three 
wars.  When  the  opposing  armies  of  Ecuador  and  Peru  were  in 
sight  of  each  other  the  telegraphic  proposals  of  the  United  States 
brought  about  the  tripartite  mediation  of  the  Argentine  Republic, 
Brazil,  and  the  United  States.  The  proposal  was  well  received 
by  Ecuador  and  Peru  and  they  abstained  from  war.  A  few  months 
ago  the  Dominican  Republic  and  Haiti  were  at  swords'  points. 
The  influence  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  stayed  their 
hands.  Also  within  the  last  few  months  the  good  offices  of  the 
United  States  put  an  end  to  civil  war  in  Honduras.  Here  are 
three  actual  achievements  of  the  peace  which  is  your  ideal.  These 
things  the  President  and  Secretary  Knox  have  done. 

Among  other  practical  modes  of  pursuing  the  ideal  of  world's 
peace  is  the  true  meaning  of  what  has  been  called  **  Dollar  Diplo- 
macy," Of  course  this  term  may  be  applied  to  commercial  diplo- 
macy. Today  international  commerce  is  everywhere  an  impor- 
tant department  of  diplomacy.  In  so  far  as  our  diplomacy  is 
commercially  successful,  we  are  proud  of  the  fact.     We  are  not 

113 


114  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE   CONGRESS 

above  being  practical  and  commercial,  and,  from  the  less  material 
point  of  view,  commerce  means  contact;  contact  means  under- 
standing; and  if  one  is  worthy  enough  to  be  respected  and  liked, 
if  understood,  international  commerce  conduces  powerfully  to 
international  sympathy.  I  say,  if  one  is  liked  as  well  as  respected. 
Here,  fortunately,  the  idealist's  interest  in  foreign  trade  as  con- 
ducive to  peace  coincides  with  the  business  man's  interest  in 
foreign  trade  for  financial  profit.  A  merchant  can  be  so  disagree- 
able that  one  prefers  to  pay  higher  prices  to  a  pleasanter  trader. 
Roughshod  methods  are  a  useless  handicap  that  can  only  be  over- 
come, if  at  all,  by  immense  superiorities.  The  most  rudimentary 
business  sense  should  dictate  tact,  sympathy,  and  considerate- 
ness  in  dealing  with  foreign  customers.  So,  in  the  broader  view, 
every  American  business  man  or  traveler,  every  student  in  uni- 
versity or  school,  who  is  inconsiderate,  supercilious,  or  lacking 
in  sympathetic  appreciation  of  his  foreign  associate,  makes  him- 
self a  missionary  not  of  good  will  but  of  ill  will,  and  so  radiates  an 
influence  not  for  peace  but  for  war. 

But  I  use  the  newly  coined  phrase  of  "Dollar  Diplomacy"  in 

another  sense.     It  means  using  the  capital  of  the  country  in  the 

foreign  field  in  a  manner  calculated  to  enhance  fixed  national 

policies.     It  means  the  substitution  of  dollars  for  bullets.     It 

^     means  the  creation  of  a  prosperity  which  will  be  preferred  to  pred- 

^    atory  strife.     It  means  availing  of  capital's  self-interest  in  peace. 

It  means  taking  advantage  of  the  interest  in  peace  of  those  who 

0     benefit  by  the  investment  of  capital.     It  recognizes  that  financial 

soundness  is  a  potent  factor  in  political  stability;  that  prosperity 

means  contentment  and  contentment  means  repose. 

This  thought  is  at  the  basis  of  the  policy  of  the  United  States 
in  Central  America  and  the  zone  of  the  Caribbean.  There  this 
policy  is  one  of  special  helpfulness  in  a  neighborhood  where 
peace  and  progress  are  especially  important  to  the  United  States, 
and  where,  moreover,  they  are  due  the  aspirations  and  the  splen- 
did resources  of  the  peoples  of  those  neighboring  republics. 

In  China  the  same  principle  has  been  invoked  to  enable  the 
United  States  to  take  its  share  in  the  material,  as  it  has  in  the 
moral  and  intellectual,  development  of  that  great  Empire. 


WILSON  115 

To  the  intellectual  and  moral  development  of  the  progressive 
Ottoman  Empire  the  United  States  has  contributed  the  greatest 
share.  There,  too,  it  is  hoped  that  American  commerce  and 
material  enterprise  will  also  contribute. 

So,  also,  ''Dollar  Diplomacy"  is  enabling  the  United  States, 
through  a  loan  by  this  country.  Great  Britain,  France,  and  prob- 
ably Germany,  to  give  practical  effect  to  its  ancient  special 
obligations  to  Liberia,  incidentally  removing  the  causes  of  friction 
between  that  struggling  Republic  and  its  powerful  neighbors. 

The  President's  aspiration  to  the  ideal  of  world  peace  was  sig- 
nalized in  more  abstract  form  in  the  public  utterance  on  the 
eighteenth  of  last  December  of  his  hope  that  the  two  great  Eng- 
lish-speaking peoples  might  set  a  new  and  higher  standard  of 
international  self-control  by  a  broader  treaty  of  arbitration.  As 
you  know,  this  task  is  now  the  subject  of  pourparlers  between  the 
American  and  British  governments,  and  it  is  not  improbable 
that  diplomacy  may  gradually  solve  the  extremely  difficult  prob- 
lem of  finding  practicable  bases  of  negotiation. 

Governments  are  the  trustees  of  the  nations'  international 
interests.  They  bear  this  heavy  responsibility  and  consequently 
are  beset  at  every  turn  by  considerations  of  what  is  practicable, 
what  is  practical,  what  is  now  and  will  in  future  be  for  the  true 
and  enduring  benefit  of  the  nations  they  serve. 

Thus,  the  everyday  work  of  peace  through  a  benevolent  and 
candid  diplomacy,  as  well  as  the  definite  working  out  of  the 
occasional  marked  advances  in  international  morality,  must  fall 
upon  governments  and  upon  departments  of  government  expert 
in  the  facts  of  international  relations. 

In  the  second  category  of  intrumentalities  working  for  inter- 
national peace  fall  the  Interparliamentary  Union  and  the  work 
for  which  Congress  has  enabled  the  President  to  appoint,  when 
opportune,  an  American  Peace  Commission.  These  agencies, 
although  not  official  in  the  strict  sense  nor  diplomatic  in  their 
functions,  still  carry  special  weight  through  their  relations  to  the 
representatives  of  the  people  in  the  legislative  branch  of  govern- 
ment. 

To  the  third  class  belong  all  those  powerful  agencies,  like  the 


Il6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

many  peace  societies  here  represented,  which  have  been  and  are 
doing  such  a  great  work  in  promulgating  the  ideals  of  peace  and 
arbitration  along  with  more  practical  ideas  toward  their  attain- 
ment. 

While  both  these  classes  of  instrumentalities  must  leave  to  the 
government  its  diplomatic  work  toward  peace,  they  can  and  do 
powerfully  second  that  work  through  their  influence  and  propa- 
ganda both  at  home  and  abroad. 

Great  things  have  been  accomplished  along  certain  lines  and  the 
criticism  that  peace  propaganda  are  unpractical  has  not  yet  been 
justified.  It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  unless  new 
lines  of  effort  are  adopted  the  state  of  public  feeling  can  be  so 
steadily  further  improved. 

First  of  all,  much  can  be  done  by  active  interest  in  and  intelli- 
gent support  of  the  everyday  practical  policies  of  government 
which  if  looked  at  otherwise  than  superficially  will  be  found  to  be 
very  real  measures  toward  peace.  Such  is  the  policy  so  wonder- 
fully successful  in  Santo  Domingo;  such  are  the  broad  principles 
involved  in  the  Honduras  loan  convention  now  before  the  Senate; 
such  is  the  Lowden  bill  for  the  improvement  of  the  foreign  ser- 
vice— a  service  which,  charged  with  all  this  work,  should  certainly 
not  be  amateurish  and  untrained.  Here  are  fields  for  practical 
effort. 

Municipal  law  confirms  and  inscribes  the  high-water  mark  of 
the  ethics  of  the  majority.  International  law  crystallizes  the  per- 
suasive value  of  what  powerful  nations  accept,  still  with  reserve, 
as  the  canons,  at  a  given  time,  of  their  conduct.  Every  reason- 
able man  is  for  peace,  just  as  every  man  would  prefer  to  go  to 
Heaven;  but  to  secure  the  one  or  the  other  requires  something 
more  than  aspiration.  The  millennium  will  not  come  for  the  wish- 
ing. Our  own  nation  has  a  very  unenviable  record  for  crimes  of 
violence.  Individual  self-control  has  not  reached  a  plane  where 
any  peace  advocate  wishes  to  have  the  police  force  abolished. 
International  peace  must  depend  upon  international  self-control 
and  sense  of  justice,  and,  the  spirit  of  a  nation  being  but  that  of  a 
collection  of  individuals,  one  comes  straight  back  to  the  school- 
house,  the  factory,  the  farm,  and  the  newspaper.    There  must  be 


WILSON  117 

self-controlled  and  patriotic  and  enlightened  citizenship  if  there 
are  to  be  peace-loving,  strong  nations  and  governments  able  to 
remain  at  peace.  As  George  Ade  states  the  moral  of  one  of  his 
fables  in  slang,  **In  uplifting,  get  underneath." 

It  is  almost  to  state  a  syllogism  to  say  that  next  to  national 
character  the  greatest  factor  toward  peace  is  true  international 
understanding,  and  that,  after  diplomacy,  the  newspapers  play 
the  most  important  part  in  bringing  about  or  retarding  such  true 
understanding.  In  the  case  of  the  United  States,  the  true  under- 
standing of  the  American  people  and  of  the  true  ideals  and  poli- 
cies of  their  government  is  horribly  hampered  by  the  fact  that,  in 
the  Far  East,  for  example,  and  still  more  in  Latin  America,  almost 
everything  bad  and  nothing  good  of  us  is  reported  in  some  sec- 
tion of  the  newspapers  of  most  countries.  Every  lynching  and 
scandal,  every  discreditable  thing,  which  it  is  our  unique  custom  to 
air  so  energetically,  is  repeated  in  its  worst  version  by  a  section  of 
the  press  of  most  of  these  countries.  In  the  case  of  many  coun- 
tries which  have  important  colonies  engaged  in  business — for 
example,  in  Brazil,  in  Peru,  in  China — their  nationals  support 
locally  their  own  organs,  which,  probably  often  subsidized,  carry 
on  a  patriotic  service  of  their  country. 

Thinking  of  Mr.  Carnegie's  munificent  gift,  it  occurs  to  me  that 
the  establishment  and  subsidy  of  four  or  five  newspapers  in  Latin 
America  and  the  Far  East,  with  means  to  give  adequate  and 
respectable  telegraphic  news  service  and  with  a  nonpartisan  and 
patriotic  guidance  of  their  policy  by  trustees  who  should  be  dis- 
associated from  the  government  and  independently  representative 
of  patriotic  American  citizenship,  would  be  a  splendid  and  proper 
means  to  that  international  true  understanding  which  must  be 
at  the  basis  of  peace. 

To  go  back  to  the  root  of  the  matter — that  is,  to  national  char- 
acter and  a  clear  and  true  outlook  on  the  part  of  the  individual 
citizen — it  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  more  care  is  given 
the  evolution  and  physical  condition  of  cattle,  which  enter  into 
commerce,  than  is  given  the  physical  condition  of  humanity 
since  it  lost  its  commercial  value  with  the  abolition  of  slavery.  In 
these  days  when  we  honor  the  soul  and  the  mind  more  than  the 


Il8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

body  and  when  the  world  is  regulated  by  moral  and  intellectual 
rather  than  physical  forces,  is  it  not  still  more  strikingly  impor- 
tant (to  speak  only  of  the  cause  of  peace)  that  the  minds  of  the 
people  should  be  fed  and  not  poisoned  in  reference  to  international 
affairs? 

It  is  quite  natural  that  in  countries  where  dangerous  frontiers 
or  other  weaknesses  make  a  fight  for  national  existence  a  familiar 
possibility  to  the  people,  foreign  relations  should  be  of  vital 
interest.  In  such  countries  the  man  in  the  street  takes  a  shrewd 
interest  in  his  country's  foreign  relations.  Much  space  is  given 
them  in  the  press.  To  write  of  them  is  familiar  and  they  are  a 
reality.  With  us  it  is  less  so,  and  consequently  when  a  certain 
section  of  the  press  gives  rein  to  its  imagination  our  public,  less 
compelled  to  a  vital  interest,  is  the  more  easily  misled.  When 
one  newspaper  promulgates  an  interesting  story  of  impending 
war,  one  can  hardly  blame  its  more  conservative  contemporary 
for  giving  the  story  for  what  it  may  be  worth.  The  harm  is  done 
by  those  very  few  newspapers  and  seemingly  from  one  of  the  three 
following  motives:  First,  because  the  impression  caused  by  the 
story  will  subserve  some  separate  purpose  which  the  newspaper 
honestly  believes  for  the  public  good;  second,  the  story  is  used  by 
an  opposition  journal  to  attack  the  administration;  or,  third,  the 
story  is  printed  for  purely  commercial  purposes  as  a  ''penny 
dreadful"  for  the  debauchery  of  the  seeker  after  sensations.  Of 
course  the  last  should  be  suppressed,  like  the  purveyor  of  injuri- 
ous drugs.  The  partisan  newspaper  might,  one  would  think, 
understand  that  while  to  attack  a  government's  domestic  policy 
or  vigorously  to  join  issue  in  case  of  a  sincere  difference  of  opinion 
upon  foreign  policy  is  legitimate,  nevertheless  indiscriminately 
to  embarrass  the  diplomacy  of  the  country  through  frivolous 
misrepresentation  or  malicious  attack  is  not  to  assail  any  admin- 
istration, but  is  to  attack  the  country  itself  among  the  nations  of 
the  world — something  for  which  there  is  an  ugly  name,  and  as  to 
which  there  should  be  something  beyond  the  present  statute. 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  I  have  in  mind  isolated  instances  only, 
and  that  I  believe  the  American  press,  as  a  whole,  is  already  begin- 
ning to  respond  to  its  patriotic  and  moral  obligations  so  increased 


WILSON  119 

since  the  United  States  entered  on  its  destined  position  as  a  great 
world  power. 

What  our  press  says  in  the  Capital  or  elsewhere  is  echoed  around 
the  world  as  the  composite  speech  of  America.  Thus,  irre- 
sponsible speech  on  international  affairs  carries  the  double  tragedy 
of  misleading  the  minds  which  are  the  ultimate  power  of  our  own 
country  and  embittering  the  minds  of  half-forgotten  multitudes 
around  the  world. 

The  subjects  of  peace  and  of  armaments  are  usually  associated, 
— sometimes  in  the  sense  that  disarmament  is  the  object  of  peace; 
sometimes  even  as  if  disarmament  were  a  means  to  peace.  Some- 
times, and  more  truly  I  think,  it  is  pointed  out  that  ample  arma- 
ment is  the  best  safeguard  of  peace.  Some  nations  have  what 
they  want.  It  is  not  unnatural  that  these  should  have  an  idea 
as  to  the  best  moment  to  stop  the  war  game  different  from  the 
idea  of  those  nations  which  have  not  what  they  want.  Former 
President  Roosevelt  recently  pointed  out  that  to  be  prepared  for 
war  no  more  meant  an  unpeaceable  disposition  than  to  carry  fire 
insurance  meant  a  special  expectation  of  fire;  that  both  meant 
merely  a  common-sense  safeguard  against  an  off-chance,  the  off- 
chance  being  always  that  it  takes  two  to  insure  peace  as  well  as  to 
precipitate  war. 

I  am  sure  the  American  people  are  protagonists  of  peace  for  a 
higher  reason  than  the  economy  of  disarmament.  If  ever  a 
country  could  afford  armaments  it  is  ours.  As  a  business  propo- 
sition it  would  save,  in  the  unfortunate  event  of  war,  the  appalling 
loss  of  life  and  money  involved  in  headlong  hasty  preparations  and 
also  the  time  necessary  to  make  a  people  already  warlike  also 
military.  As  a  burden  it  could  hardly  exceed  what  is  wholesome 
to  bear,  and  the  effort  would  focus  the  national  spirit.  And 
undoubtedly  the  most  practicable  step  toward  the  desired  inter- 
national spirit  of  humanity  is  to  begin  with  the  right  national 
spirit.  Some  people  even  think  that  a  large  army  and  a  system 
of  military  training  would  do  more  toward  peace  through  instill- 
ing patriotic  solidarity  and  discipline  than  it  would  for  war 
through  the  temptation  of  having  weapons  handy. 


I20  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

We  have  laws  against  carrying  concealed  weapons  because  a 
violent  man  with  a  concealed  weapon  is  more  dangerous  than  a 
muscular  Christian  fully  armed.  Is  a  warlike  nation,  not  fond  of 
discipline  and  possessed  of  vast  resources,  less  dangerous  than  one 
openly  carrying  its  olive  branch  and  also  its  arrows  and  thunder- 
bolt? War  springs  from  the  human  heart,  not  from  the  arsenal; 
and  the  human  heart,  rather  than  the  archives  of  diplomatic 
engagements,  is  still  the  only  ultimate  sure  abode  of  peace. 

The  nation  which  can  do  most  to  secure  international  peace 
must  be  the  nation  with  the  highest  ideals  plus  the  greatest  mili- 
tary efficiency.  It  is  such  nations  that  in  striving  for  and  realiz- 
ing their  own  advantage  contribute  the  most  toward  advantaging 
their  neighbors  and  the  world. 

In  the  absence  of  Professor  John  H.  Latane,  due  to  illness,  his 
address  was  not  read  before  the  Peace  Congress.  It  is  printed 
herewith  as  part  of  the  Proceedings : 

THE  PANAMA  CANAL  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  PEACE 

MOVEMENT 

JOHN  H.    LATAN^ 

When  President  Roosevelt  in  defiance  of  all  precedent  wrested 
Panama  from  Columbia,  he  felt  it  necessary  to  coin  a  new  phrase 
in  order  to  explain  his  extraordinary  action.  He  declared  that  he 
was  acting  in  the  interest  of  ''collective  civilization,"  that  Colom- 
bia had  no  right  ''to  bar  the  transit  of  the  world's  traffic  across 
the  isthmus."  Now  that  our  seizure  of  the  canal  zone  has  been 
generally  acquiesced  in  as  an  accomplished  fact,  we  coolly  assert 
that  the  canal  is  purely  an  American  question  and  that  the  rest 
of  the  world  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  No  longer  regarding  the 
canal  as  a  great  commercial  highway  to  be  managed  by  us  in 
trust  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  we  give  notice  to  the  world  that 
it  is  to  be  treated  primarily  as  a  military  asset  of  the  United 
States,  that  it  is  a  part  of  our  general  scheme  of  naval  defence, 
that  it  is  to  be  used  as  a  naval  base  and  therefore  must  be  fortified. 
If,  in  seizing  the  zone,  we  acted  as  the  agent  of  collective  civiliza- 


LATAN^l  121 

tion,  then  we  assume  certain  responsibilities  to  the  world  at 
large  which  we  have  no  right  now  to  ignore. 

When  the  Senate  rejected  .the  first  draft  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  and  forced  Mr.  Hay  to  strike  out  the  clause  inviting  the 
concurrence  of  the  great  civilized  powers  in  the  neutralization 
of  the  canal,  we  were  told  that  the  principle  of  neutralization  was 
retained,  but  under  the  guaranty  of  the  United  States  alone,  that 
the  guaranty  of  the  other  powers  was  not  necessary  for  its  protec- 
tion and  was  objectionable  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  Now  we  are  informed  that  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
means  nothing,  that  the  word  neutralization  was  retained  merely 
out  of  deference  to  the  feelings  of  England,  and  that  in  reality 
England  gave  us  a  free  hand  to  fortify  the  canal  if  we  should  so 
desire. 

Ten  years  ago  General  Peter  C.  Hains,  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished engineers  of  the  United  States  army,  said: 

"An  adequate  defence  of  a  fortified  isthmian  canal  can  be  made 
in  no  other  way  than  by  providing  a  navy  of  sufl&cient  power  to 
control  the  seas  at  either  terminus.  With  such  a  navy  at  our 
command,  the  canal  needs  no  fortifications." 

About  the  same  time  Admiral  Dewey  said: 

"Fortifications?  Why,  of  course  not.  As  I  understand  it, 
the  canal  is  to  be,  and  should  be,  a  neutralized  commercial  path- 
way between  two  great  oceans.  To  fortify  it  would  simply 
result  in  making  it  a  battleground  in  case  of  war.  Fortifications 
would  be  enormously  expensive  and  ought  not  to  be  erected.  Our 
fleets  will  be  a  sufl&cient  guaranty  of  the  neutrality  and  safety  of 
the  canal  in  time  of  war  as  well  as  in  time  of  peace." 

Now  it  is  contended  that  a  navy  alone  cannot  adequately 
safeguard  the  canal  and  that  huge  fortifications  at  either  end  are 
the  only  means  of  protecting  it.  Two  months  ago,  at  the  urgent 
suggestion  of  the  President,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
appropriated  $3,000,000  to  begin  the  work  of  fortification,  and 
the  measure  encountered  very  little  opposition.  Why  this  change 
of  front  on  a  question  so  vital  to  the  cause  of  peace?  The  answer 
is  to  be  found  in  psychological  conditions  similar  to  those  which 
have  impelled  a  liberal  British  ministry  to  adopt  the  most  exten- 


122  THIRD     AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

sive  naval  programme  that  England  has  ever  known.  The 
American  people,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  occupy  the 
most  impregnable  position  on  earth,  are  obsessed  with  the  war 
scare  almost  as  completely  as  the  people  of  Europe. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Congress  has  already  adopted  the  policy 
of  fortification  it  may  be  deemed  by  some  a  task  wholly  gratui- 
tous to  undertake  at  this  time  to  question  the  wisdom  of  that 
policy.  But  it  is  not  too  late  to  correct  the  mistake  if  public 
opinion  can  be  properly  informed  on  the  question.  The  original 
policy  of  our  government  was  for  a  neutralized  canal.  Long 
before  the  Suez  Canal  was  constructed  or  even  planned,  the  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer  treaty  signed  by  the  United  States  and  England  in 
1850  adopted  the  general  policy  of  neutralization  for  any  canal 
that  might  be  built  across  the  isthmus.  Article  I,  provided  that 
neither  party  would  ever  erect  or  maintain  any  fortifications 
commanding  the  canal  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof,  and  Article  II 
provided  that 

"Vessels  of  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain,  traversing  the 
said  canal,  shall,  in  case  of  war  between  the  contracting  parties, 
be  exempted  from  blockade,  detention  or  capture,  by  either  of 
the  belligerents;  and  this  provision  shall  extend  to  such  a  dis- 
tance from  the  two  ends  of  the  said  canal,  as  may  hereafter  be 
found  expedient  to  establish." 

At  the  suggestion  of  Great  Britain  the  same  principles  were 
applied  to  the  Suez  Canal  and  set  forth  at  length  in  definite  rules 
in  the  Constantinople  Convention  of  October  29,  1888. 

In  order  to  appreciate  fully  the  merits  of  a  neutralized  canal 
as  distinguished  from  a  fortified  canal,  it  is  necessary  to  arrive  at 
a  clear  conception  of  the  term  ''neutralization."  The  term  itself 
is  comparatively  new  and  its  exact  significance  in  international 
law  is  not  always  clearly  grasped  by  those  who  use  it.  While 
the  principle  was  recognized  as  long  ago  as  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
the  word  itself  has  until  comparatively  recently  been  avoided  by 
diplomatists  and  publicists.  Probably  the  earliest  definition  of 
the  term  by  a  writer  of  recognized  merit  is  given  by  Holland  in 
an  article  on  The  International  Position  of  the  Suez  Canal  in  the 
Fortnightly  Review  for  July,  1883.     He  says: 


latan6  123 

"States  have  been  permanently  neutralized  by  convention. 
Not  only  is  it  preordained  that  such  states  are  to  abstain  from 
taking  part  in  a  war  into  which  their  neighbors  may  enter,  but  it  is 
also  prearranged  that  such  states  are  not  to  become  principals  in  a 
war.  By  way  of  compensation  for  this  restriction  on  their  free- 
dom of  action,  their  immunity  from  attack  is  guaranteed  by  their 
neighbors,  for  whose  collective  interests  such  an  arrangement  is 
perceived  to  be  on  the  whole  expedient." 

In  this  sense  Switzerland  was  neutralized  by  agreement  between 
the  powers  in  181 5,  Belgium  in  1839,  the  Ionian  Islands  in  1864, 
and  Luxembourg  in  1867.  The  Geneva  Convention  of  1864 
extended  the  principle  of  neutralization  to  persons  and  things, 
exempting  from  attack  or  capture  surgeons,  nurses,  ambulances, 
and  field  hospitals.  By  the  Second  Hague  Convention  the  same 
principle  was  extended  to  hospital  ships,  which  are  exempt  from 
capture  provided  that  they  comply  with  certain  specified  con- 
ditions. 

From  a  study  of  these  familiar  cases  it  will  be  seen  that  neutral- 
ization implies:  (i)  A  formal  act  or  agreement;  it  is  a  matter  of 
convention  constituting  an  obligation,  not  a  mere  declaration 
revocable  at  will.  (2)  It  implies  a  sufficiently  large  number  of 
parties  to  the  act  to  make  the  guaranty  effective.  (3)  It  implies 
the  absence  of  fortifications.  The  mere  existence  of  fortifications 
would  impeach  the  good  faith  of  the  parties  to  the  agreement. 
(4)  It  implies  certain  limitations  of  sovereignty  over  the  territory 
neutralized,  ordinary  neutrality  is  purely  voluntary  on  the  part 
of  the  state  exercising  the  same,  while  neutralization  imposes 
a  status  of  obligatory  neutrality  not  terminable  by  the  volition 
of  the  state  which  accepts  it  or  on  which  it  is  imposed.  (5)  It 
implies  a  more  or  less  permanent  condition.  In  this  it  differs 
from  ordinary  treaty  stipulations  terminated  by  war  between  the 
contracting  parties.  A  treaty  establishing  neutralization  is 
brought  into  full  operation  by  war. 

When  we  come  to  extend  the  principle  of  neutralization  to 
waterways,  we  find  the  conditions  to  be  somewhat  different.  The 
first  and  most  fundamental  is  that  states  have  acquired  by  inter- 
national usage  and  prescription  the  right  of  innocent  passage 


124  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

through  the  territorial  waters  of  other  states  which  they  have 
no  claim  to  exercise  in  respect  to  land.  Secondly,  armies  and 
implements  of  war  are  absolutely  excluded  from  the  territory  of 
neutralized  states,  while  neutralized  waterways  are  by  design 
open  to  the  innocent  passage  of  war  ships  not  only  in  time  of 
peace  but  also  in  time  of  war.  Thirdly,  the  warfare  of  the  future 
will  in  all  probability  be  confined  more  and  more  to  the  sea,  thus 
enhancing  the  strategical  value  of  waterways  and  canals  which 
are  adjuncts  to  the  high  seas,  as  well  as  increasing  the  temptation 
to  appropriate  them  for  national  purposes.  It  is  true  that  war 
ships  are  excluded  by  international  agreement  from  the  Black 
Sea,  but  this  state  of  affairs  grew  out  of  the  "ancient  rule  of  the 
Ottoman  Empire."  Until  1774  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Porte 
to  exclude  all  ships  from  the  Black  Sea.  After  1774  war  ships 
only  were  excluded.  This  restriction  has  been  recognized  and 
continued  by  the  treaties  of  1840,  1856,  1871  and  1878,  all  signed 
by  the  great  powers  of  Europe.  The  Black  Sea,  however,  has 
never  been  regarded  as  an  open  sea  and  the  Bosporus  therefore 
offers  no  analogy  to  a  canal  connecting  two  oceans. 

When  we  come  to  the  consideration  of  maritime  canals,  the 
Suez  and  the  Panama  stand  alone.  The  analogy  between  them 
is  very  striking,  (i)  Each  is  of  the  nature  of  an  artificial  strait 
connecting  two  seas.  (2)  The  Suez  is  at  the  end  of  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea  and  the  Panama  is  at  the  end  of  the  Caribbean 
Sea,  the  American  Mediterranean.  (3)  Each  lies  wholly  within 
the  territory  of  one  power.  (4)  In  each  case  the  territorial  power 
is  too  weak  to  finance  or  protect  the  canal.  (5)  In  each  case 
foreigb  capital  has  had  to  undertake  the  work  of  construction. 
(6)  In  each  case  foreign  guaranties  have  been  sought  and  conven- 
tions entered  into  for  the  control  of  the  respective  canals,  thus 
giving  them  an  international  character.  (7)  In  the  Suez  case  the 
peculiar  position  of  Great  Britain  in  Egypt  gives  her  practically 
a  much  greater  voice  in  the  control  of  the  canal  than  any  other 
power,  while  in  the  case  of  the  Panama  Canal,  the  United  States 
by  virtue  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  claims  a  dominating  influence; 

In  view  of  this  analogy  no  discussion  of  the  Panama  Canal 
would  be  complete  which  did  not  take  into  consideration  Eng- 


LATAN^  125 

land's  policy  with  regard  to  the  Suez  Canal.  Although  con- 
structed by  French  engineers  and  mainly  with  French  capital, 
the  canal  passed  at  an  early  date  under  the  commercial  control 
of  England.  In  1875  more  than  three-fourths  of  the  commerce 
that  passed  through  the  canal  was  British.  Disraeli  was  there- 
fore quick  to  take  advantage  of  the  financial  embarrassment  of 
the  Khedive  and  purchase  the  shares  held  by  him,  thus  giving 
England  a  controlling  voice  in  the  management  of  the  canal. 
The  outbreak  of  Arabi's  revolt  in  1882  was  the  occasion  of  the 
intervention  of  England  in  Egypt  and  the  military  occupation  of 
the  line  of  the  canal. 

In  a  circular  note  addressed  to  the  powers,  January  3,  1883, 
Earl  Granville  explained  that  the  military  occupation  of  Egypt 
was  only  temporary  and  suggested  as  a  permanent  arrangement 
to  secure  the  freedom  of  the  canal  that  it  be  placed  under  inter- 
national control.  Although  undisputed  mistress  of  the  situation, 
England  continued  to  advocate  this  policy  and  it  was  finally 
embodied  in  a  formal  treaty  which  was  signed  by  the  powers  at 
Constantinople  in  October,  1888.  This  treaty  provided  that  the 
canal  should  always  be  "free  and  open,  in  time  of  war  as  in  time 
of  peace,  to  every  vessel  of  commerce  or  of  war,  without  dis- 
tinction of  flag;"  that  the  canal  should  never  be  blockaded  and 
that  no  act  of  hostility  should  be  committed  in  the  canal  or  in 
its  ports  of  access  or  within  a  radius  of  three  marine  miles  from 
these  ports.  The  terms  of  this  convention  were  all  that  the  advo- 
cates of  neutralization  could  desire.  Unfortunately  the  British 
government  in  signing  the  treaty  made  a  general  reservation  which 
raised  some  doubt  as  to  the  practical  operation  of  the  agreement 
during  her  occupation  of  Egypt.  This  reservation  seems  to  have 
generally  been  lost  sight  of  until  the  British  government  called 
attention  to  it  again  during  the  war  between  Spain  and  the 
United  States.  In  July,  1898,  Mr.  Curzon,  Under-Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  made  the  following  statement  on  the  floor  of  the 
House  of  Commons: 

"The  convention  in  question  is  certainly  in  existence,  but,  as 
I  informed  the  honorable  member  in  answer  to  a  question  some 
days  ago,  has  not  been  brought  into  practical  operation.     This 


126  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

is  owing  to  the  reserves  made  on  behalf  of  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment by  the  British  delegates  at  the  Suez  Canal  Commis- 
sion in  1885,  which  were  renewed  by  Lord  Salisbury  and  com- 
municated to  the  powers  in  1887." 

Notwithstanding  this  loophole,  the  British  government  has 
not  deemed  it  necessary  to  fortify  the  Suez  Canal,  although  she 
keeps  it  thoroughly  policed. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  numerous  agreements  in  regard 
to  an  American  canal  we  find  that  they  all  provide,  or  profess  to 
provide,  for  a  neutralized  canal.  This  principle  was  the  most 
conspicuous  feature  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  1850  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made.  The  organization  of  the 
French  Panama  company  led  to  a  change  of  policy  announced  by 
President  Hayes  in  1880  who  declared  that  any  canal  that  might 
be  constructed  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans  should 
be  under  American  control,  and  that  the  line  of  such  canal  should 
be  considered  "a  part  of  the  coast  line  of  the  United  States." 
Secretaries  Blaine  and  Frelinghuysen  tried  hard  to  secure  a  modi- 
fication of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  in  line  with  the  new  policy, 
but  their  arguments  made  little  impression  on  the  British  govern- 
ment, and  when  President  Cleveland  came  into  office  in  1885  he 
reverted  to  the  policy  of  a  neutralized  canal  under  international 
guaranty.  In  his  first  message  to  Congress  he  made  the  follow- 
ing declaration: 

"Whatever  highway  may  be  constructed  across  the  barrier 
dividing  the  two  greatest  maritime  areas  of  the  world  must  be 
for  the  world's  benefit,  a  trust  for  mankind,  to  be  removed  from 
the  chance  of  domination  by  any  single  power,  nor  become  a 
point  of  invitation  for  hostilities  or  a  prize  for  warlike  ambi- 
tion." 

The  original  draft  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  February  5, 
1900,  provided  for  a  neutralized  canal  and  adopted  rules  sub- 
stantially in  accord  with  the  Constantinople  Convention  of  1888. 
It  also  provided  for  the  adherence  of  other  powers  so  as  to  put 
the  canal  under  international  protection.  It  further  left  the 
United  States  free  to  construct  the  canal  as  a  government  enter- 
prise which  was  not  permitted  by  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 


LATAN^l  127 

The  principle  of  neutralization  remained  unchanged.  The  Sen- 
ate, however,  amended  the  treaty  in  three  important  particu- 
lars: (i)  it  declared  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  "superseded." 
(2)  A  paragraph  was  inserted  declaring  that  the  restrictions  and 
regulations  governing  the  use  of  the  canal  should  not  ''apply  to 
measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take 
for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States 
and  the  maintenance  of  public  order."  (3)  The  article  provid- 
ing for  the  adherence  of  other  powers  is  cut  out  entirely.  In  an 
article  in  the  Cosmopolitan  for  April,  Mr.  James  Creelman  makes 
the  boast  that  he  and  William  Randolph  Hearst  defeated  Mr. 
Hay's  plans  and  forced  the  Senate  to  reject  the  first  draft  of  his 
treaty.  Mr.  Hay,  he  informs  us,  had  a  sentimental  regard  for 
England  and  was  in  the  habit  of  lunching  frequently  with  Lord 
Pauncefote. 

The  British  government  at  first  refused  to  accept  the  Senate 
amendments  and  a  year  elapsed  before  an  agreement  was  reached. 
The  revised  treaty  which  was  ratified  by  the  Senate,  December 
16,  i90i,was  to  a  certain  extent  a  compromise  between  the  orig- 
inal draft  and  the  Senate  amendments,  though  the  latter  had  the 
greater  weight.  Article  I  abrogates  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 
Article  II  provides  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the 
auspices  of  the  United  States  and  shall  be  under  its  exclusive 
management.  Article  III  declares  that  "the  United  States 
adopts"  as  the  basis  of  neutralization  substantially  the  rules  of 
the  Constantinople  Convention.  It  omits  from  these  rules, 
however,  the  clause  "in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace"  and  the 
entire  rule  forbidding  fortifications.  The  article  inviting  the 
adherence  of  other  powers  is  likewise  omitted. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  does  not  establish 
the  neutralization  that  it  professes.  In  the  first  place  all  the 
other  treaties  effecting  neutralization  are  placed  under  the  col- 
lective guaranty  of  a  number  of  powers,  while  the  Hay-Paunce- 
fote treaty  places  the  neutralization  of  the  Panama  Canal  under 
the  sole  guaranty  of  the  United  States.  Secondly,  this  declara- 
tion establishes  an  obligation  to  England  alone.  No  other  power 
has  the  right  to  demand  the  observance  of  the  rules,  further  than 


128  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

equality  of  treatment.  In  the  third  place,  the  fact  that  a  clause 
forbidding  fortifications  was  inserted  in  the  first  draft  and  after 
full  discussion  deliberately  omitted  from  the  revised  treaty  leaves 
the  United  States  free,  by  implication  certainly,  to  fortify  the 
canal.  This  view  of  the  case  was  in  fact  admitted  by  Lord  Lans- 
downe  in  a  memorandum  which  was  communicated  to  the  Ameri- 
can government,  August  3,  1901.  In  the  fourth  place,  the  omis- 
sion of  the  clause,  "in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace,"  leaves  the 
United  States  free,  by  impHcation  at  least,  to  modify  or  suspend 
in  time  of  war  the  rules  governing  the  use  of  the  canal. 

In  the  above  consideration  of  the  Constantinople  Convention 
and  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  we  are  again  struck  with  the 
analogy  between  the  Suez  and  Panama  Canals.  In  the  Suez 
Canal  agreement  Great  Britain  has  a  loophole  through  which 
she  can  escape  in  case  the  provisions  of  the  convention  threaten 
to  embarrass  her  movements,  while  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
is  so  full  of  holes  that  the  United  States  will  have  no  difficulty  in 
evading  any  of  its  provisions  if  she  so  desires.  Both  conven- 
tions lay  down  certain  ideals  which  it  behoves  the  advocates  of 
international  peace  to  uphold.  While  England  proposed  the 
neutralization  of  the  Suez  Canal,  and  while  the  United  States 
professes  to  have  neutralized  the  Panama  Canal,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  neither  country  has  quite  the  courage  of  its  convictions. 
England's  good  faith  and  good  intentions  are  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  she  has  refrained  from  fortifying  the  Suez  Canal,  but  the 
United  States,  whose  position  on  this  continent  is  infinitely 
stronger  than  England's  position  in  Egypt,  is  practically  repudi- 
ating the  principle  of  neutralization  which  theoretically  she  pro- 
fesses to  hold  by  resorting  to  fortifications. 

The  opponents  of  fortification  have  made  the  mistake  of  assum- 
ing  that  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  really  neutralized  the  canal 
and  that  in  resorting  to  fortifications  the  United  States  is  violate 
ing  that  compact.  It  has  been  shown  above,  however,  that  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  is  a  slender  reed  to  lean  upon.  The  whole 
question  resolves  itself  therefore  into  one  of  expediency.  Will 
it  serve  our  best  interests  and  the  best  interests  of  the  world 
at  large  to  fortify  the  canal  or  to  neutralize  it?     President  Taft 


latan6  129 

holds  that  we  can  do  both.  But  from  this  proposition  I  strongly 
dissent.  Neutralization  both  in  principle  and  in  practice  is  utterly 
inconsistent  with  fortifications.  President  Taft  does  not  appear 
to  distinguish  between  neutrality  and  neutralization.  Of  course 
the  United  States  can  fortify  the  canal  and  permit  the  warships 
of  belligerents  in  any  war  to  which  we  are  not  a  party  to  use  the 
canal  on  equal  terms,  just  as  we  permit  belligerent  warships  to 
enter  our  territorial  waters  and  ports  under  certain  restrictions. 
There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  one  that  the 
United  States  can  maintain  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  in  any 
war  to  which  we  are  not  a  party.  But  we  could  do  this  equally 
well  without  fortifications.  With  our  present  naval  strength 
neither  belligerent  in  a  war  in  which  we  remained  neutral  could 
afford  to  molest  the  canal  in  any  way,  for  such  conduct  would 
draw  us  into  the  war  against  him. 

But  what  will  be  the  status  of  the  canal  when  we  ourselves  are 
engaged  in  war?  The  present  intention  seems  to  be  to  close  it 
to  the  ships  of  the  enemy  and  use  it  as  a  naval  base,  keeping  a 
large  fleet  in  the  canal  to  dart  forth  in  either  direction  as  occasion 
may  require.  Theoretically  this  is  plausible  enough,  but  practi- 
cally, where  is  the  power  that  could  send  two  formidable  fleets 
against  us  at  one  and  the  same  time,  one  by  way  of  the  Atlantic 
and  one  by  way  of  the  Pacific?  I  suppose  that  this  particular 
policy  has  been  evolved  to  meet  the  emergency  of  a  war  with 
England  and  Japan.  Our  fleet  from  its  vantage  point  in  the  canal 
could  dart  out  into  the  Caribbean  while  the  guns  on  the  Pacific 
are  holding  Japan  at  bay,  defeat  the  English  fleet,  then  rush 
through  the  canal  to  the  Pacific  and  overwhelm  Japan.  If, 
however,  the  Japanese  fleet  should  attack  San  Francisco  and 
the  English  fleet  New  York,  we  would  at  least  have  the  satisfac- 
tion of  knowing  that  our  fleet  was  safe  between  the  locks,  a  hun- 
dred feet  above  the  ocean,  midway  between  the  Atlantic  and  the 
Pacific,  with  huge  guns  at  either  end  to  protect  it! 

But  even  if  such  is  the  use  to  be  made  of  the  canal,  it  will  be 
just  as  safe  without  fortifications  as  with  them.  Even  in  the 
absence  of  our  fleet  do  you  suppose  that  an  enemy  of  the  United 
States  would  try  to  enter  the  canal  unless  it  were  neutralized? 


130  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

If  he  dared  try,  we  could  easily  blow  up  or  disable  his  ships  in 
transit.  No  enemy  would  risk  it  unless  he  had  previously  taken 
military  possession  of  the  entire  Zone.  Fortifications  at  the 
ends  would  not  prevent  an  enemy  from  landing  a  military  force 
out  of  range  of  the  guns  and  making  a  dash  for  the  locks.  This 
is  the  real  danger,  and  this  could  be  avoided  only  by  keeping  a 
large  military  force  along  the  line  of  the  canal. 

If  we  fortify  the  canal  and  use  it  as  a  naval  base,  it  will  be  a 
legitimate  object  of  attack  and  an  enemy  would  have  the  right 
to  destroy  it  if  he  were  able. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  canal  is  neutralized  by  a  general 
treaty  between  the  great  powers  of  the  world,  no  enemy  of  the 
United  States  would  dare  to  destroy  or  injure  it  in  violation  of 
such  a  treaty.  Why?  Because  at  the  close  of  the  war  he  would 
be  compelled  to  indemnify  not  only  the  United  States  for  injury 
to  the  canal,  but  all  the  powers  whose  commerce  had  suffered  by 
interruption  of  traffic.  The  neutralization  scheme  thus  depends 
not  on  the  good  faith  of  any  nation  but  on  the  liability  for  indem- 
nity that  would  inevitably  attach  to  the  nation  that  should  vio- 
late an  international  compact  which  so  vitally  concerned  the 
commerce  of  the  world.  If  the  canal  is  neutralized  by  interna- 
tional agreement,  it  would  have  to  be  open  to  the  ships  of  our 
enemies  if  they  cared  to  use  it,  and  our  own  ships  would  have  to 
comply  with  the  same  rules  as  the  enemy  on  entering  and  leaving 
the  canal.  On  no  other  conditions  would  the  powers  agree  to 
sign  a  treaty  of  guaranty.  This  proposition  raises  the  really 
vital  question,  would  we  consent  to  allow  the  ships  of  an  enemy  to 
pass  through  the  canal  under  any  circumstances?  Such  an  idea 
is  to  some  minds  "unthinkable."  Why  should  we  allow  an  enemy 
to  use  a  canfil  which  has  cost  us  four  hundred  millions  to  build? 
I  ask  in  rejoinder,  why  not?  When  you  look  into  the  proposition 
fully,  it  is  not  as  preposterous  as  it  appears  at  first  sight.  Take 
a  concrete  case.  Suppose  we  were  at  war  with  Japan.  I  do  not 
share  the  views  of  Mr.  Hobson,  but  suppose  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
meut  that  we  were,  and  suppose — another  very  improbable 
supposition — that  Japan  should  send  a  fleet  into  American  waters. 
If  the  canal  were  neutralized,  she  could  not  attack  or  blockade 
it  but  she  could  send  her  fleet  through  into  the  Carribean  Sea 


» 


latan6  '  131 

if  we  did  not  meet  her  in  the  Pacific.  If  she  were  foolish  enough 
to  pursue  this  course  it  would  be  decidedly  to  our  advantage  to 
meet  her  in  the  Caribbean  which  is  the  key  to  our  naval  situation. 
There  is  surely  no  other  spot  where  we  would  be  prepared  to  meet 
her  to  better  advantage  and,  if  she  were  defeated  there,  her  ships 
would  stand  very  little  chance  of  ever  getting  home. 

Suppose  on  the  other  hand  that  we  were  attacked  by  England 
or  Germany.  The  West  Indies  would  naturally  be  the  scene 
of  the  conflict  and  neither  of  these  powers  would  have  any  occa- 
sion to  use  the  canal  unless  it  should  defeat  us  in  battle  and  gain 
control  of  the  Caribbean  Sea.  In  the  latter  event,  if  the  canal 
were  neutralized  we  could  still  send  our  Pacific  Squadron  through 
and  collect  it  all  in  the  neutral  zone  on  the  Atlantic  side  before 
proceeding  to  an  encounter.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  canal 
were  not  neutralized  but  fortified,  the  enemy  could  blockade  the 
outlet  and  our  ships  would  be  in  the  plight  that  Cervera's  ships 
were  at  Santiago.  They  would  have  to  come  out  one  at  a  time 
exposed  to  the  fire  of  a  whole  squadron. 

If  the  canal  is  fortified  and  a  legitimate  object  of  attack  by 
the  enemy,  our  fleet  will  be  tied  down  to  very  narrow  limits,  not 
only  to  prevent  the  canal  from  being  blockaded,  but  what  is  even 
more  important,  to  prevent  an  enemy  from  landing  troops  out 
of  range  of  the  guns  at  the  fortified  mouth  and  making  a  dash  for 
the  locks  which  are  all  inland.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  canal  is 
neutralized,  our  fleet  would  have  much  greater  freedom  of  action 
and  would  not  have  to  remain  at  the  western  end  of  the  Carib- 
bean. In  fact  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  our  fleet  to  be  near 
the  canal  except  when  it  was  necessary  to  convoy  ships  to  the 
entrance  or  to  go  there  to  meet  ships  coming  through  from  the 
Pacific. 

The  cost  of  fortification  will  be  enormous.  It  is  true  that  Con- 
gress has  been  asked  so  far  to  appropriate  only  a  paltry  $3,000,000, 
but  the  object  of  this  appropriation  was  merely  to  commit  the 
country  to  the  policy  of  fortification.  The  sum  asked  for  was  so 
insignificant  that  it  could  not  well  be  refused,  but  this  is  merely 
a  beginning.  The  cost  and  maintenance  of  fortifications  will 
not  be  the  only  expense  entailed.  Fortifications  cannot  ade- 
quately defend  the  canal  for  the  real  danger  is  not  at  the  ends 


132  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

where  the  fortifications  will  be  placed,  but  inland  where  the  locks 
are  situated.  With  the  most  powerful  guns  in  the  world  at  the 
ends  to  prevent  ships  from  entering  the  canal,  the  locks  will  still 
be  exposed  to  attack  by  a  military  force,  and  to  ward  off  this 
danger  it  will  be  necessary  in  case  of  war  for  us  to  keep  a  large 
military  force  along  the  line  of  the  canal. 

All  this  expense  could  be  avoided  by  neutralization,  and  at 
what  cost?  Merely  by  refraining  from  using  the  canal  as  a  naval 
base  and  by  conceding  to  other  powers  the  right  to  use  it  in  time 
of  war  as  in  time  of  peace,  a  right  which  we  have  shown  they 
would,  unless  our  navy  were  practically  annihilated,  have  little 
occasion  or  desire  to  exercise. 

But  the  objection  is  raised  that  neutralization  would  be  a  vio- 
lation of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  answer  to  this  is  that  we 
were  for  fifty  years  committed  by  a  formal  treaty  agreement  to 
a  policy  of  neutralization  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine  did  not  suffer 
any  serious  harm  during  that  time.  The  warmest  advocates 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  have  also  been  advocates  of  an  interna- 
tionalized canal.  Neutralization  would  not  give  the  European 
powers  the  right  to  intervene  in  the  internal  affairs  of  any 
American  state.  A  treaty  neutralizing  the  canal  and  placing  it 
under  international  guaranty  would,  it  is  true,  impose  a  limita- 
tion upon  our  sovereign  right  to  do  what  we  please  with  a  piece 
of  property  which  we  own;  but  this  same  objection  may  be  raised 
with  equal  force  against  a  general  arbitration  treaty  such  as  Presi- 
dent Taft  is  supposed  at  present  to  be  negotiating  with  England. 
Such  a  treaty  imposes  certain  limitations  upon  our  sovereign 
freedom  of  action;  it  binds  us  to  refrain  from  acting  on  our  own 
sense  of  right  and  justice  and  to  accept  the  decision  of  others  on 
questions  that  concern  even  our  honor  and  vital  interests. 

The  time  has  come  when  it  is  right  and  proper  that  nations 
should  surrender  under  voluntary  agreements  their  sovereign 
freedom  of  action  in  matters  that  concern  the  peace  of  the  world. 
I  deplore  the  policy  of  the  President  in  the  matter  of  the  canal 
just  as  deeply  as  I  approve  his  policy  of  negotiating  compulsory 
arbitration  agreements.  In  appropriating  $3,000,000  for  the  pur- 
pose of  beginning  fortifications  and  thereby  committing  the 
country  to  the  policy  of  a  fortified  canal,  we  have  thrown  away  a 


LATANl^  133 

great  opportunity  for  promoting  the  cause  of  international  peace 
and  we  have  given  the  stamp  of  our  approval  in  a  more  signifi- 
cant way  than  ever  before  to  the  policy  of  heavy  peace  arma- 
ments. The  position  of  the  United  States  is  as  nearly  impreg- 
nable as  that  of  any  power  on  earth.  Why  should  we  be  so  swept 
off  our  feet  by  the  modern  war  scare? 

Neutralization  does  not  mean  the  surrender  of  our  commercial 
interest  or  control.  We  have  put  up  the  capital  for  the  canal  and 
we  will  draw  the  dividends.  But  if  it  is  to  fill  the  place  that  we 
expect  it  to  fill  as  a  great  channel  for  the  world's  commerce,  then 
we  must  administer  it  with  due  regard  for  the  interests  of  the 
world  at  large.  If,  in  taking  the  canal  zone,  we  acted  as  the  agent 
of  collective  civilization,  then  we  have  a  right  to  ask  the  civilized 
powers  of  the  world  to  unite  with  us  in  protecting  and  neutraliz- 
ing the  canal.  Why  have  we  not  done  so?  Why  not  do  so  yet? 
If  you  doubt  the  good  faith  of  the  civilized  nations,  remember  that 
the  scheme  of  neutralization  does  not  rest  on  good  faith  alone, 
but  on  a  very  material  consideration,  namely  the  fear  of  the  dam- 
ages that  would  be  assessed  in  case  the  treaty  were  violated. 
This  is  a  point  I  wish  especially  to  emphasize,  for  I  believe  that 
the  fear  of  having  to  pay  an  indemnity  would  prove  an  adequate 
sanction  for  the  guaranty  of  the  canal.  We  are  told,  it  is  true, 
that  we  laymen  are  not  competent  to  express  an  opinion  on  this 
question  of  fortifying  the  canal,  that  we  should  leave  that  to  mili- 
tary experts.  It  is  not  always  safe  to  go  to  a  surgeon  whose 
specialty  is  appendicitis  to  consult  him  as  to  whether  your  appen- 
dix should  be  removed.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  do  not  leave  the 
size  of  our  army  or  the  strength  of  our  navy  to  the  determina- 
tion of  military  experts.  If  we  did,  we  would  be  laboring  under 
the  burden  of  heavier  war  taxes  than  are  paid  today  by  the  sub- 
jects of  the  German  Emperor,  and  we  would  have  the  high  seas 
covered  in  a  few  years  with  dreadnaughts.  Fortunately  we  leave 
these  questions  to  the  common  sense  of  the  American  people, 
and  that  is  where  we  should  leave  the  question  of  fortifying  the 
Panama  Canal. 

Chairman  Wilson  introduced  Mr.  Edwin  D.  Mead  of  Boston,  who 
spoke  in  part  as  follows: 


134  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

THE  ANGLO-AMERICAN   LEADERSHIP    FOR    PEACE 

Edwin  D.  Mead  of  Boston,  speaking  upon  the  Anglo-American 
Leadership  for  Peace,  referred  in  opening  to  the  impressive  Anglo- 
American  arbitration  meeting  held  just  a  week  before  in  the 
Guildhall  in  London.  At  that  great  meeting,  Mr.  Asquith,  the 
Liberal  prime  minister,  and  Mr.  Balfour,  the  leader  of  the  opposi- 
tion in  Parliament,  had  spoken  together  in  welcoming  the  proposal 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  a  general  treaty 
of  arbitration  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain.  The 
principles  of  such  a  treaty,  they  rightly  declared,  would  not  only 
serve  the  higher  interests  of  the  two  nations,  but  would  promote 
the  peace  of  the  world.  Seldom  in  recent  history  has  the  feeling 
of  the  English  people  been  so  profoundly  stirred  as  over  this  pro- 
posed treaty.  It  has  been  a  feeling  transcending  all  party  lines. 
When  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  British  foreign  minister,  two  months 
ago,  made  the  noteworthy  speech  which  met  with  such  acclaim 
not  only  in  England  but  in  all  Europe,  his  chief  supporter  also 
was  Mr.  Balfour.  So  will  it  be  in  America.  Republican  and 
Democrat  alike,  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  country,  will  support 
President  Taft  in  his  demand  for  reference  to  arbitration  or  an 
international  court  of  every  dispute  whatever  between  these  two 
great  nations  not  settled  by  regular  diplomatic  negotiations. 
When  President  Taft  made  that  demand  in  his  memorable  speech 
in  Washington,  last  December,  he  took  the  most  advanced  posi- 
tion ever  taken  by  the  responsible  head  of  a  great  nation;  and  the 
ratification  of  the  proposed  Anglo-American  treaty,  settling  it 
that  never  again  shall  there  be  war  between  these  two  nations, 
will  be  an  event  significant  indeed  not  alone  for  these  nations 
but,  as  the  Guildhall  resolution  last  week  well  declared,  for  the 
peace  of  the  world.  For  it  is  known  that  France  is  ready  for  such 
a  treaty;  it  is  said  that  Japan  is  ready;  and  the  Anglo-American 
treaty  must  prove  the  opening  of  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  arbi- 
tration and  of  the  long  struggle  to  supplant  the  war  system  of 
nations  by  the  system  of  law. 

Mr.  Mead  discussed  the  Olney-Pauncefote  treaty  and  its  unfor- 
tunate failure  by  a  few  votes  in  the  Senate  in  1897,  the  votes  of 


MEAD  135 

three  states  representing  a  combined  population  less  than  the 
population  of  Chicago.  That  failure  accused  our  Senate  and 
accused  our  people;  and  public  opinion  today  must  be  alert  to 
make  sure  that  no  such  miserable  miscarriage  is  again  possible. 
Great  Britain  has  been  ready  all  these  years  for  such  a  treaty 
as  now  seems  likely;  we  only  are  to  blame  because  it  does  not  exist. 
Our  own  international  leaders  have  unitedly  urged  it,  as  the 
speaker  showed  by  a  review  of  the  action  of  the  great  Arbitration 
Conferences  in  Washington  in  1896  and  1904.  At  last  the  time 
seems  ripe;  and  it  is  for  Britain  and  America  to  lead  the  world. 

The  important  contributions  of  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  to  the  arbitration  movement  were  rapidly  surveyed. 
From  the  time  of  Jay's  treaty  to  the  present  time  no  other  nations 
have  sent  so  many  cases  to  arbitration  as  these  two.  Special 
reference  was  made  to  the  successful  arbitration  of  the  Alabama 
case  between  the  nations  themselves,  as  involving  the  gravest 
possible  questions  of  national  honor  and  vital  interest.  No  more 
serious  case  between  two  proud  nations  was  possible. 

It  was  in  the  United  States  and  England  that  the  peace  move- 
ment, as  an  organized  movement,  began.  The  New  York  and 
Massachusetts  Peace  Societies  of  1815  and  the  London  Society 
of  18 1 6  were  the  first  in  the  world;  and  from  these  centres  the 
movement  has  spread  until  at  last  it  has  created  The  Hague 
Conferences  and  an  international  tribunal  and  President  Taft's 
unlimited  treaty  and  last  week's  meeting  in  the  London  Guild- 
hall. 

In  closing,  Mr.  Mead  spoke  of  the  approaching  celebration  of 
the  century  of  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
and  the  powerful  lesson  in  disarmament  furnished  by  the  unfor- 
tified Canadian  frontier.  Precisely  because  unguarded  that 
frontier  has  been  for  a  century  the  safest  frontier  in  the  world; 
and  it  remains  a  standing  and  salutary  enforcement  of  the  truth 
that  what  the  nations  need  is  simply  to  act  like  gentlemen  and  so 
be  safe. 

Chairman  Wilson  made  the  following  announcement,  We  are 
fortunate  in  having  with  us  Mr.  James  Speyer,  of  Speyer  and 


136  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Company,  Chairman  of  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
and  delegate  to  this  Congress.  It  will  be  interesting  to  hear 
from  one  of  our  leading  bankers  at  this  time. 

Mr.  James  Speyer  delivered  the  following  address,  his  subject 
being, 

INTERNATIONAL    FINANCE:    A    POWER    FOR    PEACE 

There  are  some  business  men  who  think  that  when  one  of  their 
number  publicly  expresses  his  opinions  on  more  or  less  abstract 
subjects,  it  is  an  indication  that  he  has  joined  the  ranks  of  the 
theorists.  •  Of  course  we  business  men  have  to  reckon  with  facts 
and  figures  and  realities;  but  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  no  great  success  has  ever  been  achieved  by  men  who  do  not 
also  possess  a  certain  amount  of  idealism  and  imagination,  and  a 
firm  belief  in  the  honest  common  sense  of  the  American  people. 
This  is  the  foundation  for  that  optimism  which  is  so  well  justified, 
in  this  great  country  of  ours. 

I  see  in  this  hall  a  goodly  number  of  clear-headed  business  men 
who  are  seriously  working  for  international  peace,  and  I  there- 
fore feel  encouraged  to  submit  a  few  suggestions,  actuated  by  a 
desire  to  assist  to  a  slight  extent  in  reaching  the  goal  toward 
which  our  efforts  are  now  directed. 

We  frequently  hear  the  remark  that  ''there  always  have  been 
and  there  always  will  be  wars."  Other  and  abler  speakers  have 
dwelt  on  the  difference  that  exists  in  this  respect  in  modern  times 
with  conditions  as  they  formerly  were.  Great  wars  of  conquest, 
pure  and  simple,  or  wars  caused  by  religious  fanaticism,  are  prac- 
tically things  of  the  past. 

Today  we  find  that  the  extension  of  commerce  and  industry 
and  commercial  advantages  are  the  mainspring,  the  "leitmotif," 
of  the  policy  of  civilized  nations.  Each  nation  is  desirous  of 
extending  its  commerce,  and  only  too  often  does  the  resulting 
rivalry  lead  to  customs  struggles,  international  irritation  and 
complications,  which  become  a  strong  contributory  cause  if  not 
the  real  reason  for  wars. 


SPEYER  137 

Such  complications  and  wars  are  the  greatest  enemies  of  com- 
merce, not  only  by  diminishing  or  stopping  the  free  intercourse 
between  peoples,  but  also  by  largely  destroying  the  fruit  of  com- 
merce and  industry — wealth.  A  great  part  of  the  wealth  of  a 
nation  is  represented  by  the  savings  and  investments  of  its  individ- 
ual citizens,  and  we  may  well  ask  whether  these  savings  of  each 
nation  could  not  be  employed  in  such  manner  as  to  render  such 
disturbances  of  its  commerce  less  frequent  and  severe. 

So  far  it  has  rather  been  the  aim  of  the  governments  of  rich 
nations  to  limit,  as  far  as  possible,  the  investment  of  the  savings  of 
their  own  citizens  to  their  own  national  and  colonial  enterprises 
and  securities — government,  railroad  and  industrial.  I  need  not 
dwell  here  on  the  financial  and  economic  reasons  for  such  artificial 
limitations.  Exceptions  have  from  time  to  time  been  made  in 
encouraging  investments  in  the  securities  of  less  powerful  and  less 
developed  countries,  in  whose  advancement  foreign  capital  has 
played  such  an  important,  and  I  may  add,  profitable  part.  Ex- 
amples will  readily  occur  showing  the  importance  of  the  financial 
link  uniting  such  newer  countries  to  their  financial  godmother, 
and  its  power  for  order  and  peace,  even  within  such  foreign  coun- 
tries, exercised,  if  necessary,  by  the  creditor  nation. 

The  minds  of  some  of  our  leading  men  are  occupied  just  now 
with  the  consideration  of  the  extent  to  which  the  surplus  wealth 
of  the  United  States  should  be  employed  in  financing  Central 
and  South  American  countries,  thereby  extending  our  legitimate 
sphere  of  influence.  The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  and 
the  large  investment  which  the  United  States  have  made  in  that 
work,  have,  perhaps  more  than  we  realize  today,  extended  our 
political  influence  and  responsibilities  over  the  whole  region  north 
of  the  canal  up  to  our  own  border.  The  logical  consequence,  it 
seems  to  me,  of  our  upholding  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  makes 
it  difficult  for  foreign  creditor  nations  to  collect  what  is  due  them 
in  case  of  default  of  Central  and  South  American  countries, 
must  be  that  we  ourselves  assume,  in  more  or  less  definite  form, 
the  task  of  assisting  these  creditors  to  receive  what  is  justly  due 
them  and  of  keeping  order  in  these  countries. 

But  quite  apart  from  the  investments  made  by  older  countries 


138  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

in  those  that  are  still  less  developed,  and  therefore  offer  greater 
chances  of  profit,  should  not  the  few  really  great  World  Powers 
also  make  an  effort  in  their  own  interest  to  encourage  their  citizens 
to  invest  their  savings  in  the  enterprises  and  securities  of  other 
first-class  nations?     If  the  people  of  one  country  are  financially 

^  interested  in  the  affairs  and  enterprises  of  another  country,  this 
will  produce  not  only  more  frequent  intercourse  but  substantial 
mutual  interests  and  good  will.     No  great  nation  would  readily 

^  go  to  war  with  another  when  the  savings  of  its  own  citizens  would 
thus  be  jeopardized.  Is  it,  for  instance,  conceivable  that  France, 
which  today  owns  such  an  immense  amount  of  Russian  securities, 
would  think  of  going  to  war  with  Russia,  even  if  there  were  no 
political  alliance  or  understanding?  Certainly  not.  Interna- 
tional financial  links,  moreover,  lead  to  more  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  conditions — financial,  social,  economic  and  political — of 
other  nations,  and  such  closer  study  and  more  accurate  informa- 
tion have  the  result  of  explaining  many  things,  showing  the  other 
point  of  view  and  other  peoples'  legitimate  aspirations,  and  of 
thus  removing  misunderstandings  which  otherwise  might  have 
grave  consequences. 

While  it  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  the  beneficial  results  of 
interchange  of  investments  amongst  the  great  World  Powers,  it 
is  less  easy  to  indicate  in  a  few  words  a  practical  way  to  bring 
about  this  desirable  end.  There  are  many  factors  that  enter 
into  this  mattter,  quite  apart  from  the  question  of  return  on  the 
investment  and  profit.  There  are  national  prejudices  to  over- 
come, and  sentiment  does  play  a  greater  part  in  business  matters 
than  is  often  supposed  to  be  the  case.  It  would  be  necessary,  and 
I  think  it  would  be  found  expedient,  for  some  nations  to  do  away 
with  the  artificial  discrimination  which  they  enforce  against 
"foreign"  investments,  such  as  higher  stamp  and  other  taxes 
imposed  thereon  in  favor  of  home  securities.  The  arbitrary 
exclusion  of  foreign  securities  from  the  list  of  funds  in  which 
savings  banks  and  trustees  may  lawfully  invest  would  have  to  be 
modified,  and  for  nations  desiring  a  wider  market  for  their  secur- 
ities it  would  be  advisable  to  adapt  to  some  extent  their  form,  as 
regards  denominations  and  currencies,  to  the  customs  of  the  peo- 


SPEYER  139 

pie  who  are  to  buy  them,  just  as  the  merchants  and  great  manu- 
facturers adapt  their  goods  to  the  market  which  they  seek.  The 
value  of  foreign  markets  and  exports  might,  at  times,  prove  just 
as  great  for  securities  as  for  iron  and  steel  and  manufactured 
goods. 

So  much  for  the  influence  of  international  investments  in  times 
of  peace. 

What  should  and  could  be  done  in  times  of  war  by  first-class 
powers? 

There  surely  will  occur  periods  in  a  nation's  history  when  no 
financial  investment  will,  or  perhaps  should,  prevent  a  nation 
from  taking  up  arms,  until,  of  course,  some  other  way  is  found 
and  established  to  settle  their  differences.  The  wars  of  all  times, 
and  especially  of  the  last  century,  have  shown  what  tremendous 
financial  burdens  these  conflicts  impose,  even  on  the  victorious 
nation,  and  financial  considerations  play  a  greater  part  in  modern 
times  than  they  did  of  old.  One  frequently  sees  the  statement 
in  the  papers  that  "the  bankers  could  prevent  wars,"  but  I  have 
so  far  not  seen  any  practical  way  suggested  whereby  the  banks 
and  bankers  really  could,  if  necessary,  be  made  to  forego  their 
own  profits,  and  thus  make  war  if  not  impossible  at  least  less  fre- 
quent  and   shorter. 

While  in  the  excitement  of  the  moment,  patriotic  feeling  may 
carry  a  nation  into  a  war,  relying  on  its  own  resources,  history 
shows  that  but  very  few  nations  in  modern  times  can  carry  on  any 
prolonged  foreign  war  with  their  own  resources  only.  How  long, 
for  instance,  would  the  war  between  Russia  and  Japan  have 
lasted,  or  how  soon  would  it  have  ended,  if  neither  of  the  belliger- 
ents, had  received  financial  assistance  from  so-called  "neutral" 
Powers.  Indeed,  it  might  be  asked  whether  Japan  would  have 
embarked  in  this  war  if  her  statesmen  had  not  known  that  they 
could  rely  on  the  financial  assistance  of  England.  These  Great 
Powers,  France  and  England,  who  so  scrupulously  preserved 
neutrality  as  laid  down  by  international  law,  and  who  saw  to  it 
that  such  neutrality  was  maintained  by  their  citizens,  did  not 
hesitate  to  assist  the  belligerents  in  the  most  efficient  way  to  carry 
on  the  conflict — with  money.     Money  enables  the  belligerents 


140  THIRD   AMP.RICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

to  buy  powder  and  shells  and  all  they  need  to  carry  on  war,  and 
it  certainly  does  not  seem  logical  that  neutral  Powers  should  be 
allowed  to  send  money  when  international  agreements  will  not 
allow  them  to  send  the  ships  and  war  materials  which  their  money 
buys. 

We  find  today  in  Europe  that  in  times  of  peace  certain  govern- 
ments will  not  allow  their  bankers  to  take  and  place  foreign  loans 
in  the  home  market  unless  the  purposes  for  which  the  loan  is 
to  be  used  are  known  and  approved,  and  at  least  part  of  the  pro- 
ceeds are  used  by  the  borrowing  nation  for  expenditures  in  such 
home  markets  for  the  benefit  of  the  lending  nation. 

I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  generally  known  in  this  country  to 
what  extent  such  supervision  by  the  French  and  German  govern- 
ments, for  instance,  goes,  and  as  an  illustration  I  would  like  to 
cite  from  memory  what  happened  last  year  when  the  young 
Turk  party  wanted  to  place  abroad  a  loan  of  the  Ottoman  Empire. 
They  went  to  Paris  as  the  cheapest  money  market,  but  when  they 
applied  to  France,  the  French  government,  which  supervises  the 
listing,  or  official  quotation  of  securities  on  the  Paris  Bourse, 
wanted  to  know  for  what  purpose  the  loan  was  to  be  raised,  and, 
if  ships,  et  cetera,  were  to  be  bought,  whether  they  were  to  be 
bought  from  the  lending  nation.  The  Turkish  finance  minister 
did  not  want  to  submit  to  any  conditions,  and,  according  to  the 
newspapers,  negotiations  were  begun  with  a  prominent  English 
financier,  who  seemed  to  be  wiUing  to  make  the  loan.  The  French 
government  called  the  attention  of  the  British  government  to  the 
so-called  entente  cordiale  between  France  and  England,  and  inti- 
mated in  a  more  or  less  direct  way  that  they  would  consider 
English  bankers  making  a  loan  which  France  had  declined  as  a 
rather  unfriendly  act.  The  English  government  thereupon 
notified  the  financier  and  English  banks  generally  that  they  would 
not  like  the  loan  to  Turkey  made  by  them,  and  it  was  not  made  by 
them.  The  Turkish  government  finally  obtained  the  loan  from 
Germany  and  Austria  on  terms  satisfactory  to  the  governments 
of  these  nations. 

Now,  if  such  supervision  and  control  of  the  bankers  already 
exists  in  time  of  peace,  it  does  not  seem  a  wide  flight  of  imagina- 


SPEYER  141 

tion  to  suggest  that  the  Great  Powers  might  agree  to  exercise 
such  control  in  times  of  war  between  third  parties  and  to  main- 
tain, in  future,  what,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  might  be  called 
"Financial  Neutrality."  In  case  two  nations  went  to  war  with- 
out first  submitting  their  grievances  and  differences  to  arbitra- 
tion or  judicial  settlement  at  The  Hague,  why  should  the  other 
neutral  Powers  not  bind  themselves  not  to  assist  either  of  the 
belligerents  jSnancially,  but  to  see  to  it  that  real  neutrality  was 
observed  by  their  banks  and  bankers.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
this  could  be  done.  If  no  financial  assistance  could  be  obtained 
from  the  outside,  few  nations  would,  in  the  face  of  this  most  effec- 
tive neutrality  of  the  other  Powers,  incur  the  peril  of  bankruptcy. 
Some  wars  would  probably  not  take  place  at  all,  and  those  that 
could  not  be  avoided,  would  certainly  last  a  much  shorter  time. 

These  suggestions  may  seem  Utopian  and  more  difficult  of 
practical  accomplishment  than  they  really  are.  I  wish  to  apolo- 
gize for  the  very  incomplete  manner  in  which  they  are  presented. 

In  all  financial  matters  of  importance,  one  should  only  move 
slowly  and  with  great  caution,  but  I  do  believe  that  in  the  course 
of  time  measures  substantially  on  the  lines  I  have  suggested  will 
be  approved  and  demanded  by  public  opinion  of  the  great  nations, 
and  will  then  be  carried  into  effect. 

We  in  the  United  States  are  proud  of  being  called  a  business 
people.  Uninterrupted  peace  is  of  more  importance  to  business 
than  the  tariff  reform,  free  trade,  or  currency  reform,  or  even 
reciprocity  with  Canada.  It  is  a  business  question,  and  we  busi- 
ness men  of  the  United  States  should  insist  on  international  agree- 
ments making  for  peace. 

We  are  indeed  fortunate  to  have  at  the  head  of  our  government 
a  man  who,  without  giving  way  to  false  and  dangerous  senti- 
ment, or  ignoring  existing  conditions,  continuing  the  policy  of 
his  predecessor,  is  courageously  leading  in  this  world  movement. 
We  should  make  it  OMr  business,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  back  up  Presi- 
dent Taft.     Chairman  Wilson  made  the  following  announcement 

The  next  address  will  be  on  the  subject  of  "Universal  Arbitra- 
tion," and  will  be  by  a  man  whose  name  is  more  intimately  associ- 


142  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ated  with  the  practical  work  toward  peace  through  the  Inter- 
Parliamentary  Union  extending  all  over  the  world  than,  I  think, 
any  other  American  citizen.  His  name  is  associated,  indeed, 
with  all  practical  movements  toward  peace.  I  have  the  honor 
to  present  the  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt,  member  of  Congress 
from   Missouri. 

PEACE  AND  ARBITRATION 

HON.  RICHARD  BARTHOLDT 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  is  not  so  very  long 
ago  when  those  who  arranged  and  attended  peace  meetings  were 
looked  upon  as  harmless  cranks.  What  a  change,  my  country- 
men! Today  the  leading  men  of  the  country  are  vying  with  each 
other  to  lend  their  presence  and  voice  to  such  gatherings,  and  to 
my  mind  nothing  demonstrates  more  clearly  the  triumphant 
force  of  the  ideas  which  underlie  the  peace  movement.  It  is 
true  that  even  today  a  Congress  of  the  picked  men  of  the  nation 
such  as  this  is  not  fully  appreciated  by  all  the  people,  but  surely  the 
time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  American  people  will  realize  that 
the  men  who  made  this  Congress  possible  are  really  human  bene- 
factors and  that  the  City  of  Baltimore,  by  extending  her  hos- 
pitality to  us,  has  added  a  proud,  if  not  the  proudest  page  to  her 
interesting  history. 

There  is  something  about  the  peace  movement  which  is  a 
peculiarity  of  its  own.  The  objects  of  all  great  progressive  move- 
ments of  which  history  tells  us — and  in  our  country  there  has  not 
been  one,  except  the  question  of  the  abolition  of  slavery,  which 
could  compare  in  transcendent  importance  with  the  movement  to 
found  our  peace  and  the  world's  peace  upon  the  imperishable 
rock  of  law — the  objects,  I  say,  of  nearly  all  great  movements 
were  either  favored  or  opposed,  that  is,  favored  by  one  side  and 
opposed  by  the  other.  The  goal,  however,  toward  which  the 
modern  advocates  of  peace  strive,  seems  to  have  the  hearty 
approval  of  all.  Every  good  man  and  woman  wants  to  see  the 
country's  peace  preserved,  and  even  the  most  incarnate  mili- 
tarist whose  profession  is  war,  does  not  dare  openly  to  advocate  it. 
This  is  true  to  such  an  extent  that  modern  militarism  is  actually 


BARTHOLDT  1 43 

on  the  defensive  and  apologizes  for  the  existence  of  armaments 
and  for  the  demands  for  their  increase  on  the  ground  that  they 
are  necessary,  not  for  the  conduct  of  war,  but  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  peace.  It  appears,  therefore,  as  I  said,  that  as  to  the  ulti- 
mate object,  namely  the  necessity  of  maintaining  peace,  we  are 
all  in  accord,  and  the  only  difference  of  opinions  as  to  the  method 
of  attaining  that  object,  by  armaments  or  by  arbitration.  The 
difference,  I  admit,  is  a  radical  and  fundamental  one,  but  while 
the  civilized  world  still  cHngs  to  the  old  plan  of  coercion,  intimi- 
dation and  force  through  armament,  which  is  plainly  a  relic  of 
barbarism,  evolution  points  with  unerring  finger  to  a  new  and 
better  method  to  maintain  peace,  namely  to  a  system  of  interna- 
tional justice  through  arbitration.  And  this  is  the  proposition 
I  was  invited  to  discuss. 

I  assume  it  to  be  unnecessary  before  an  audience  as  intelligent 
as  this,  to  dwell  on  the  theory  of  arbitration  and  its  vast  advan- 
tages as  a  method  of  settling  disputes,  over  force  and  war.  Sufl&ce 
it  to  say  that  arbitration,  in  the  accepted  sense,  means  judicial 
decisions  in  accordance  with  recognized  principles  of  justice, 
while  war  never  has  settled  and  never  will  settle  a  question  of 
right  and  wrong.  Arbitration  is  for  nations  what  our  courts  are 
for  individuals,  so  that  it  signifies  merely  an  extension  of  the  reign 
of  law  to  international  relations.  Armaments  are  a  preparation 
for  war  and  often  incite  war,  arbitration  is  an  assurance  of  peace. 
War  and  the  state  of  preparedness  for  it  sap  the  life  blood  of  the 
nation,  while  the  machinery  of  arbitration  will  not  cost  as  much  as 
the  armor  plate  for  a  single  battleship,  and  as  against  the  positive 
loss  to  civilization  caused  by  the  sacrifice  of  Ufe  and  treasure,  the 
suffering,  the  brutalizing  effect  and  the  moral  damage  of  war, 
we  find  the  positive  gain,  through  arbitration,  of  an  increased 
sense  of  justice  and  humaneness  and  of  continued  tranquillity, 
prosperity  and  peace.  Naturally  such  comparisons  are  odious 
to  the  militarist,  but  the  odium  of  it  is  that  the  human  family  has 
not  emerged,  hundreds  of  years  ago,  from  the  barbarism  of  the 
throat-cutting  business. 

Now,  I  may  be  an  optimist,  but  I  can  hear  distinctly  the  sound 
of  the  clock  striking  the  hour  of  emancipation  from  the  old  order 
of  things  and  the  inauguration  of  the  new.     Only  we  must  not 


144  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

expect  immediate  disarmament.  The  transition  must  needs  be 
gradual,  and  for  a  while  the  world  will  continue  to  maintain  its  arm- 
ies and  navies,  as  the  new  system  is  put  to  a  test.  In  considering 
the  practical  side  of  arbitration  we  find  that  hundreds  of  controver- 
sies have  been  peaceably  settled  by  resort  to  it,  but  its  application 
heretofore  has  been  a  very  limited  one,  the  treaties  extending 
only  to  questions  of  a  judicial  nature  and  expressly  exempting 
all  questions  of  vital  interest,  independence  and  honor  as  well  as 
those  concerning  third  parties.  It  was  left  to  an  American  Presi- 
dent to  propose — and  this  should  swell  every  American  heart  with 
pride — that  all  questions  without  exception,  should  be  subject 
to  arbitration.  President  Taft  has  made  such  a  proposition  to 
Great  Britain,  and  the  latter  country  is  gladly  and  enthusiasti- 
cally grasping  the  outstretched  hand.  I  wonder  if  the  people 
realize  the  significance  of  this  act?  To  my  mind,  there  has  not 
been  since  Abraham  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  freedom  to  the  slave, 
a  more  important  step  taken  on  the  human  stage,  and  I  would 
not  hesitate  to  brand  as  an  enemy  of  mankind  the  man  who  would 
dare,  from  whatever  motive,  to  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
our  President's  great  design.  Far  from  being  an  alliance,  the 
proposed  pact  does  not  concern  third  parties  except  as  a  good 
example  for  all  civilized  nations  to  emulate,  and  the  two  nations, 
by  renouncing  the  arbitrary  power  to  draw  the  sword  against  each 
other  thus  remove  the  possibility  of  war  and  become  the  mutual 
beneficiaries  of  the  blessings  of  perpetual  peace  under  an  enlight- 
ened system  of  law  and  justice.  It  is  a  beginning  and  who  will 
doubt  but  that  the  other  great  nations  will  soon  be  drawn  into 
the  circle,  attracted  by  the  irresistible  magnetism  of  right  and 
reason?  The  establishment  of  the  permanent  Court  of  Arbitral 
Justice,  already  agreed  upon  in  principle,  will  follow  as  a  matter 
of  course. 

It  is  proper  to  ask  what  the  possible  objections  could  be  on  the 
part  of  any  nation  to  join  the  British-American  agreement.  I 
will  tell  you.  Universal  arbitration  would  render  a  large  part  of 
the  world's  armaments  unnecessary,  and  some  of  the  great  Euro- 
pean governments  are  averse  to  surrendering  any  part  of  their 
military  power.     Naturally,  they  do  not  say  so,  but  base  their 


BARTHOLDT  I45 

objections  on  the  ground  that  submission  to  an  international 
court  involves  the  surrender  of  sovereignty  which  they  say  they 
are  not  disposed  to  make.  This  objection  looks  serious  when  we 
remember  how  jealously  all  monarchieal  rulers  are  guarding  their 
sovereign  power.  Nevertheless  I  predict  that  sooner  or  later  they 
will  have  to  make  this  concession  to  human  progress.  Where 
sovereign  power  and  the  true  interests  of  the  people  conflict, 
the  former  is  bound  to  give  way,  and  in  this  case  it  would  be  a 
sacrifice  in  the  interest  of  what  is  or  should  be  the  highest  aim  of 
all  governments,  namely  the  securing  of  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  the  people  and  the  avoidance  of  the  sacrifices  for  war.  And  there 
is  one  other  consideration  which,  when  advanced  by  me  at  the 
last  Interparliamentary  Conference  at  Brussels,  was  hailed  with 
applause  by  the  six  hundred  or  more  delegates  present,  all  of  them 
members  of  national  legislative  bodies.  It  is  this:  When  the  great 
rulers  of  Europe  in  case  of  a  dispute  surrender  the  arbitrary  power 
of  immediately  deciding  on  hostilities,  they  surely  make  a  sac- 
rifice of  authority,  but  there  is  on  the  other  hand  a  gain  which 
more  than  evens  up  the  loss.  They  become  part  and  parcel  of  a 
higher,  an  international  power  which,  in  a  judicial  sense,  rules 
the  world  and  sits  in  judgment  on  all  causes  of  the  nations  assent- 
ing to  the  compact.  In  other  words,  these  sovereigns,  in  return 
for  whatever  authority  they  yield  up  to  the  common  good,  are 
made  to  share  in  the  great  world  organization  created  to  adminis- 
ter justice  between  the  nations.  And  is  not  this  plan  patterned 
after  the  social  order  prevailing  in  civilized  society?  If  every 
individual  claimed  the  right  to  assert  his  sovereignty,  there  would 
be  anarchy,  but  instead  on  entering  society  he  gives  up  his  natural 
rights  and  in  return  is  guaranteed  only  such  liberty  of  action  as 
will  enable  his  neighbor  to  enjoy  the  same  liberty,  but  both  enjoy 
the  protection  to  life,  liberty  and  property,  guaranteed  by  the 
consent  of  all.  As  long  as  a  nation  remains  isolated  and  alone, 
its  government  can  exercise  unrestricted  sovereignty,  but  the 
moment  it  enters  an  agreement  with  another  nation  its  sovereign 
authority  is  circumscribed  by  the  terms  of  such  an  agreement. 
Each  government  has  already  bound  itself  in  this  manner  in  many 
instances,  consequently  it  cannot  rightfully  fall  back  upon  the 


146  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

assertion  of  its  sovereignty  as  against  a  proposed  compact,  more 
important  than  all  others,  one  which  will  insure  to  the  people  as 
an  alternative  for  war  the  blessings  of  a  lasting  peace.  And  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  sovereigns  rule  by  "divine  right" 
or  by  "the  consent  of  the  governed"  because  the  happiness  of 
the  people  must  be  their  first  concern.  It  is  an  obligation  in  the 
one  case  moral,  in  the  other  actual,  but  in  each  case  absolutely 
binding. 

There  may  be  objections,  too,  on  the  part  of  some  powers  to  the 
proposition  to  arbitrate  all  disputes  including  those  heretofore 
excepted,  namely  questions  of  honor,  vital  interest  andindepen- 
/^ence.  President  Taft's  courageous  position  has  reminded  the 
'  world  that  questions  of  honor  are  really  the  easiest  to  arbitrate. 
In  the  first  place  no  nation  will  intentionally  insult  another  in  this 
day  and  time,  but,  furthermore,  the  conduct  of  each  government 
toward  all  other  governments  is  supposed  to  be  honorable,  and 
if  it  is,  it  need  never  fear  the  judgment  of  an  impartial  tribunal. 
And  as  to  the  other  questions  I  would  suggest  that  in  all  arbi- 
tration treaties,  even  in  that  between  this  country  and  Great 
Britain,  there  be  inserted  a  preamble  by  which  the  contracting 
parties  proceed  to  guarantee  to  each  other  at  the  outset,  territo- 
rial integrity  and  absolute  sovereignty  in  domestic  affairs.  The 
rest  is  easy.  Such  a  stipulation  would  undoubtedly  be  an  incen- 
tive for  such  powers  which  still  entertain  scruples  against  joining 
the   agreement. 

The  all-absorbing  question  at  this  juncture  is:  Will  the  United 
States  Senate  ratify  the  Anglo-American  agreement?  But  for 
past  experience  it  would  be  an  insult  to  the  Senate  to  ask  such  a 
question.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  Senate  might  insist 
on  being  consulted  in  each  particular  case  that  may  come  up 
and,  consequently,  deny  to  the  Executive  the  wholesale  authority 
so  essential  in  such  matters.  Let  us  hope  that  our  lawmakers 
may  not  take  such  a  stand.  If  arbitration  is  to  be  made  possible, 
it  must  in  each  case  be  resorted  to  without  much  delay,  that  is, 
before  the  popular  passion  is  aroused.  If  you  allow  the  apple 
of  discord  to  be  thrown  into  the  arena  and  by  heated  discussions 
in  the  Senate  stir  the  fighting  blood  of  the  people,  you  render 


GRIFFIN  147 

arbitration  much  more  difficult,  if  not  altogether  impossible,  and 
the  benefit  of  a  peaceable  adjustment  of  a  controversy  would 
probably  be  lost.  The  Senate,  in  my  judgment,  cannot  afford  to 
thus  nullify  and  negative  the  efforts  authorized  by  beneficent  laws 
at  maintaining  the  people's  peace.  Its  constitutional  preroga- 
tives are  satisfied,  it  seems,  by  passing  upon  the  treaty  which  gives 
the  President  the  needed  authority,  and  certainly  there  can  be  no 
danger  in  conferring  power  which  can  only  be  exercised  for  the 
benefit  and  never  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  American  people. 
As  Americans  let  us  rejoice  in  President  Taft's  wise  statesman- 
ship and  in  the  great  initiative  he  has  just  taken,  to  add  a  new  mean- 
ing to  our  flag  and  new  honor  and  prestige  to  this  nation.  It 
is  a  message  which  will  be  hailed  with  joy  by  all  the  people  of  the 
earth  and  reads:  "America  leads  the  world  in  peace." 

Chairman  Wilson:  I  next  have  the  honor  and  the  pleasure  to 
call  upon  Professor  E.  H.  Griffin,  the  Dean  of  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  whose  address  will  be  "An  Argument  from 
Hobbes'  Leviathan ^ 


AN  ARGUMENT  FROM  HOBBES'  LEVIATHAN 

E.   H.    GRIFFIN 

I  wish  to  illustrate  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  proposed 
court  of  arbitral  justice  by  reference  to  a  seventeenth  century 
classic  of  political  and  ethical  speculation — the  Leviathan  of 
Thomas  Hobbes.  This  famous  work  offers  so  many  interesting  and 
salient  features  that  one  is  tempted  to  linger  upon  them,  but  with- 
out any  such  preliminaries,  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  four 
propositions  maintained  in  the  treatise,  the  truth  of  which  cannot — 
if  we  are  granted  a  little  liberty  of  interpretation — be  denied,  and 
which  constitute  a  quite  conclusive  argument  for  the  international 
tribunal  which  we  desire. 

I.  As  is  well  known,  Hobbes  conceives  the  natural  condition 
of  mankind  to  be  one  of  warfare.  The  differences,  bodily  and 
mental,  between  individuals  are  not  so  great  as  to  enable  any 


148  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

one  to  claim  benefits  to  which  another  may  not  aspire  as  well  as 
he.  The  powers  of  men  are  substantially  equal,  and  hence  their 
ambitions  tend  to  be  the  same.  ''If  any  two  men  desire  the  same 
thing,  which  nevertheless  they  cannot  both  enjoy,  they  become 
enemies"  (part  I,  Chapter  XIII).  ''Nature  thus  dissociates 
men,  and  renders  them  apt  to  invade  and  destroy  one  another." 
Hobbes  is  too  clear-sighted  not  to  perceive  that  these  divisive  and 
hostile  impulses  are  subject  to  counteraction.  The  necessities 
of  self-preservation  compel  cooperation,  even  in  the  lowest  savag- 
ery, and  tend  to  bring  about  a  more  or  less  settled  and  regular 
order  of  life.  Quite  independently  of  the  operation  of  benevolent 
and  sympathetic  feelings,  a  certain  degree  of  social  organization 
must  inevitably  arise.  And  so  he  suggests  a  doubt:  "It  may  per- 
adventure  be  thought  that  there  never  was  such  a  time  and 
conditions  of  war  as  this."  Butinthecaseof  the  aggregates  of  indi- 
viduals which  we  call  nations,  there  is  no  such  interdependence; 
one  nation  may  dispense  with  the  cooperation  of  others.  Hence 
the  original  state  of  war,  which  cannot  be  verified  in  regard  to 
individuals,  is  indisputable,  so  far  as  nations  are  concerned. 
"Though  there  had  never  been  any  time  wherein  particular  men 
were  in  a  condition  of  war  one  against  another;  yet  in  all  times 
kings  and  persons  of  sovereign  authority,  because  of  their  inde- 
pendency, are  in  continual  jealousies,  and  in  the  state  and  pos- 
ture of  gladiators."  The  natural  attitude  of  nations  toward 
one  another  is  that  of  hostility,  because  the  disintegrating  ten- 
dencies of  selfishness,  which  within  the  limits  of  the  community 
are  partially  counteracted  through  the  dependence  of  each  upon 
the  others,  are  not  thus  held  in  check  outside  the  limits  of  the 
community.  This  is  Hobbes'  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the 
standards  of  morality  between  states  are  so  different  from  those 
which  prevail  in  individual  life. 

The  characterizations  of  the  "state  of  nature"  in  The  Levia- 
than apply  with  painful  accuracy  to  the  civilised  nations  of  modern 
Christendom.  They  are  "in  the  state  and  posture  of  gladiators, 
having  their  weapons  pointing  and  their  eyes  fixed  on  one 
another."  Overt  hostilities  are  not,  indeed,  always  in  progress, 
but  "war  consisteth  not  in  battle  only,  or  the  act  of  fighting,  but 


GRIFFIN  149 

in  a  tract  of  time  wherein  the  will  to  contend  by  battle  is  suffi- 
ciently known;  as  the  nature  of  foul  weather  lieth  not  in  a  shower 
or  two  of  rain,  but  in  an  inclination  thereto  of  many  days  together." 
As  to  the  causes  producing  this  state  of  things,  "we  find  in  the 
nature  of  man  three  principal  causes  of  quarrel.  First,  competi- 
tion; second,  diffidence;  thirdly,  glory.  The  first  maketh  men 
invade  for  gain;  the  second,  for  safety;  and  the  third  for  reputa- 
tion." We  may  thankfully  admit  that  the  last  named  of  these  is 
less  operative  now  than  two  and  a  half  centuries  ago.  With  the 
increasing  power  of  the  people,  and  the  limitation  of  royal  pre- 
rogative, wars  of  mere  ambition,  undertaken  for  dynastic  aggran- 
disement, are  not  so  likely  to  occur.  But  have  the  other  causes 
lost  anything  of  their  potency?  Most  modern  conflicts,  economic 
in  origin,  are  "for  gain."  The  underlying  motive  is  desire  to  obtain 
possession  of  the  natural  resources  of  the  earth,  to  control  the 
world's  markets.  It  is  this  which  makes  Africa,  and  China,  and 
the  states  of  southeastern  Europe,  and  the  ocean  whose  name  may 
some  day  become  an  irony,  storm  centres.  One  would  like  to 
think  that  ''diffidence" — jealous  dislike  and  distrust — is  dis- 
appearing from  diplomacy  and  international  intercourse,  but 
when  one  recalls  the  relations  between  France  and  Germany  for 
the  past  forty  years,  and  observes  the  state  of  public  opinion  at 
the  present  time  in  England  toward  Germany  and  in  Germany 
toward  England,  and  considers  the  readiness  with  which  we  our- 
selves give  credence  to  wild  and  sinister  rumors  and  surmises  in 
regard  to  Japan,  this  comfortable  belief  is  not  a  little  disturbed. 
In  fact,  the  most  disquieting  and  discouraging  feature  of  the  moral 
and  political  life  of  our  time  is  the  profound  distrust  with  which 
the  leading  nations  of  the  world  regard  one  another.  There  is 
no  lack  of  ceremonious  courtesy,  of  profuse  assurances  of  friend- 
ship; there  are  treaty  obligations  and  recognized  principles 
governing  international  relations;  but  one  is  shocked  to  find, 
from  time  to  time,  in  the  most  reputable  journals,  expressions  of 
opinion  and  feeling  such  as  the  following:  "We  must  cease  to 
play  and  toy  with  this  urgent  problem  of  the  independence  and 
integrity  of  the  smaller  states  of  Europe  in  time  of  war.  A  dozen 
years  ago,  there  was  reasonable  hope  that  the  neutrality  of  the 


150  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

small  countries  bordering  upon  France  and  Germany  would  be 
respected  in  case  of  a  Franco-German  war,  but  no  one  today  any 
longer  believes  it  .  .  .  .  It  is  also  possible  that  Switzer- 
land may  no  longer  stand  outside  the  area  of  conflagration,  and 
it  is  probable  that  in  case  of  an  Anglo- German  war  the  conserva- 
tion of  the  neutrality  of  the  Netherlands  will  not  remain  an  absorb- 
ing interest  to  German  strategists."  In  other  words,  in  the  event 
of  war  the  most  solemn  engagements  of  honor  and  good  faith 
would  be  disregarded.  When  a  well  known  writer,  in  a  paper 
like  The  London  Times,  expresses  such  a  belief,  and  thousands  of 
intelligent  and  sensible  people  concur  in  it,  one  feels  that  a  condi- 
tion not  far  fronv  chaos  discloses  itself. 

Hobbes's  state  of  war,  unhappily,  is  not  a  fantasy,  or  a  thing  of 
the  distant  past,  long  left  behind  in  the  advance  of  civilization; 
it  is  actually  realised  in  the  international  relations  of  the  twen- 
tieth century. 

II.  According  to  the  author  of  The  Leviathan,  the  inconve- 
niences and  dangers  of  this  state  of  war  are  so  intolerable  that  men 
are  compelled  to  seek  some  means  of  escape.  "In  such  con- 
dition ....  the  life  of  man  is  solitary,  poor,  nasty, 
brutish,  and  short." 

The  ten  years  from  1895  to  1905  were  the  most  warlike  decade 
since  Waterloo.  Within  that  period  occurred  the  war  between 
Japan  and  China  in  1894-95,  that  between  Turkey  and  Greece 
in  1897,  our  own  conflict  with  Spain  in  1898,  the  war  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  South  African  Republics,  1 899-1 902,  and 
the  gigantic  struggle  between  Russia  and  Japan  in  1904-05. 
The  financial  cost  of  these  world-embracing  hostilities  was  incon- 
ceivably great,  England  spent  nearly  a  billion  and  a  half  of  dol- 
lars on  the  Boer  War.  The  direct  expenditures  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  armies  and  navies,  in  these  five  contests,  the  property 
destroyed  in  the  course  of  military  operations,  the  losses  inci- 
dent to  the  withdrawal  of  so  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
men  from  productive  industries,  make  up  a  total  of  economic 
waste,  which  no  figures  can  adequately  express.  As  to  the  ghastly 
aggregate  of  human  suffering  involved,  this  cannot  be  imagined — 
the  tortures  of  the  battlefield,  the  misery  of  ruined  homes  and 


I 


GRIFFIN  *  151 

broken  hearts.  One  visiting  the  English  churches  is  deeply  moved 
by  the  pathos  of  the  tablets  in  memory  of  those  who  perished  in 
the  South  African  war.  These  are  even  more  numerous  than 
those  which  commemorate  the  Crimea,  and  they  are  tragic  evi- 
dence of  the  price  at  which  this  triumph  was  won. 

One  might  have  hoped  that,  after  this  decade  of  strife,  such  a 
revulsion  of  feeling  would  have  set  in  that  the  world  would  turn 
away,  in  weariness  and  disgust,  from  such  pursuits  to  apply  itself 
to  the  arts  of  peace.  On  the  contrary,  hostile  preparations  have 
been  pushed  forward  during  the  past  half  dozen  years  with  a 
feverish  energy  never  before  known.  The  naval  expenditures  of 
Great  Britain  in  1910  were  precisely  double  what  they  were  in 
1897 — the  year  before  our  war  with  Spain,  i.e.,  forty  million 
pounds  as  against  twenty  million;  our  own  naval  expenditures  in 
1910  were  nearly  four  times  greater  than  in  1897,  z.g.,  one  hundred 
and  thirty-five  million  dollars  as  against  thirty-five  million. 
All  the  great  nations  furnish  a  similar  record. 

The  ruinous  burdens  imposed  by  these  increasing  armaments 
are  better  appreciated  when  we  consider  the  enormous  increase 
of  taxation  which  they  necessitate;  and  when  we  consider  how 
much  these  vast  sums  might  accomplish  toward  the  solving  of 
the  terrible  problems  of  our  civilization — the  problems  of  poverty, 
of  disease,  of  ignorance,  and  of  crime;  and  when  we  note  the  extra- 
ordinary fact  that  more  than  one  of  the  nations  indulging  in  these 
lavish  outlays  is  actually  borrowing  money  to  meet  deficits  in 
the  annual  budget. 

The  apprehension  with  which  responsible  statesmen  have  long 
regarded  the  situation  is  well  expressed  in  these  warning  words 
uttered  in  Parliament  by  Sir  Edward  Grey,  Secretary  for  Foreign 
Affairs: — "Unless  the  mischief  is  brought  home  to  men's  feelings 
as  well  as  to  their  minds,  the  growth  of  armaments  must  in  the 
long  run  break  down  civilization.  You  are  having  this  great 
burden  piled  up  in  times  of  peace,  and  if  it  goes  on  increasing  by 
leaps  and  bounds  as  it  has  done  in  the  last  generation,  it  will 
become  intolerable.  There  are  those  who  think  that  it  will  lead 
to  war  precisely  because  it  is  already  becoming  intolerable.  I 
think  it  much  more  likely  that  the  burden  will  be  dissipated  by  an 


152  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

internal  revolution,  by  a  revolt  of  the  masses  of  men  against  taxa- 
tion." What  will  happen  when  one  of  the  great  states  of  Europe 
ceases  to  pay  the  interest  on  its  national  debt? 

Our  generation  is  abundantly  experiencing  the  truth  of  Hobbes' 
assertion  that  the  evils  of  the  state  of  war  are  unendurable. 

III.  Deliverance  from  these  anxieties  and  dangers  is  obtained, 
according  to  the  account  given  in  the  Leviathan,  by  means  of  a 
compact,  in  which  men  mutually  agree,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  to 
renounce  certain  of  their  rights,  retaining  such  only  as  they  are 
willing  that  all  others  should  enjoy;  and  in  which  they  agree  also 
to  erect  a  common  power,  a  "sovereign,"  or  "commonwealth," 
such  as  may  be  "able  to  defend  them  from  the  invasion  of 
foreigners  and  the  injuries  of  one  another." 

"It  is  necessary  for  all  men  that  seek  peace  to  lay  down  certain 
rights  of  nature;  that  is  to  say,  not  to  have  liberty  to  do  all  they 
list."  ....  "And  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  reduce  all 
their  wills,  by  plurality  of  voices,  to  one  will;  which  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  to  appoint  one  man,  or  assembly  of  men,  to  bear  their 

person; as  if  every  man  should  say  to  every 

man,  'I  authorise  and  give  up  my  right  of  governing  myself  to 
this  man,  or  to  this  assembly  of  men,  on  this  conditions  that  thou 
give  up  thy  right  to  him,  and  authorise  all  his  actions  in  like 
manner.'  This  done,  the  multitude  so  united  in  one  person  is 
called  a  'Commonwealth.'" 

As  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  state,  this  contract  theory, 
which  seemed  so  satisfactory  to  most  of  the  political  thinkers  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  is,  of  course,  long  since 
discredited,  but  as  an  explanation  of  a  particular  form  of  govern- 
ment, existing  at  a  given  time  and  place,  it  is  a  sufficiently  accu- 
rate account.  When  the  present  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
framed  by  a  convention  and  submitted  to  the  people,  was  finally 
accepted  by  all  the  states,  a  contract  was  entered  into  between  the 
several  states.  When,  in  1871,  a  parliament  of  all  Germany 
ratified  the  present  constitution  of  the  German  Empire,  a  similar 
relationship  was  established  between  the  constituent  elements  of 
the  Empire.  The  Swiss  Confederation,  and  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  are  additional  examples.  All  federal  states  may  be  said 
to  rest  upon  contract. 


GRIFFIN  153 

While  the  author  of  the  Leviathan  was,  then,  mistaken  in  sup- 
posing that  the  contract  idea  expresses  the  proper  relation  of  the 
individual  to  the  state — since  that  relation  is  not  a  voluntary 
one — he  was  quite  right  in  emphasising  its  importance,  since  it  is 
the  idea  which  underlies  governments  having  the  form  of  con- 
federations, and  it  is  the  idea  which  enters  into  all  transactions 
between  independent  sovereignties.  It  is  through  some  wisely 
conceived  application  of  this  idea — let  us  say,  in  an  international 
court — that  the  peace  of  nations  is  to  be  safeguarded. 

It  is  interesting  to  see,  in  recent  discussions,  the  tendency  to 
remove  the  restrictions  of  jurisdiction  which  it  has  so  often  been 
thought  necessary  to  impose  upon  such  a  tribunal.  The  words  of 
President  Taft,  a  year  or  more  ago,  furnish  a  leadership  for  which 
the  friends  of  peace  cannot  be  too  grateful.  "Personally,  I  do 
not  see  any  more  reason  why  matters  of  national  honor  should  not 
be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbitration  than  matters  of  property,  or 
matters  of  national  proprietorship."  Obviously,  if  territorial 
questions,  or  questions  assumed  to  involve  "vital  interests," 
or  "national  honor"  are  to  be  reserved,  little  could  be  accom- 
plished. On  this  point,  the  case  of  the  ^^ Alabama  claims"  is 
most  instructive;  Earl  Russell  declared  that  these  could  never 
be  arbitrated  because  the  national  honor  was  involved,  but  the 
more  dispassionate  judgment  of  a  later  time  thought  them  a 
proper  subject  of  adjudication.  As  long  ago  as  1890,  the  first  con- 
ference of  all  the  independent  countries  of  the  Western  hemis- 
pheres, held  in  Washington,  declared:  "The  sole  question  which 
any  nation  is  not  at  liberty  to  arbitrate  is  a  question  which  might 
imperil  its  independence."  This  is  just  the  point  at  which  Hobbes 
limits  the  authority  of  the  sovereign — an  authority  which  he 
makes  almost  limitless;  the  sovereign  may  not  deprive  the  sub- 
ject of  the  right  to  defend  himself.  It  would  certainly  seem  rea- 
sonable to  say  that,  as  a  man  may  not  contract  himself  into  slav- 
ery, so  a  nation  may  not  submit  to  any  tribunal  the  question  of 
its  own  existence. 

But,  with  this  qualification,  why  may  not  the  jurisdiction  of 
an  international  court  be  as  comprehensive  as  the  interests  for 
the  sake  of  which  it  is  constituted? 


154  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  way  out  of  the  embarrassments  and  dangers  of  the  state 
of  war  is  that  suggested  in  the  Leviathan — a  contract  of  mutual 
renunciation. 

IV.  Hobbes  was  severely  censured  in  his  day — and  the  cen- 
sure is  still  sometimes  repeated — for  saying  that  justice  and 
injustice,  right  and  wrong,  are  subsequent  to  the  institution  of 
society,  that  they  do  not  exist  until  after  the  covenant  which 
brings  the  state  into  being  has  been  entered  into.  "When  no 
covenant  hath  preceded,  then  hath  no  right  been  transferred,  and 
every  man  has  a  right  to  everything;  and  consequently  no  action 
can  be  unjust."  But  when  a  covenant  is  made,  then  to  break  it 
is  unjust.  He  has  been  supposed  to  mean  that  the  obligations  of 
morality  are  not  inherently  binding,  but  are  the  mere  product  of 
convention  and  external  enactment.  That  this  is  not  his  mean- 
ing is  entirely  clear;  he  expressly  explains  that  he  is  speaking,  not 
of  the  internal  recognition  of  laws  of  conduct,  but  of  the  external 
embodiment  of  them  in  act.  ''The  laws  of  nature  oblige  in  foro 
interna,  that  is  to  say,  they  bind  to  a  desire  they  should  take 
place;  but  in  foro  externo,  that  is  to  the  putting  them  in  act, 
not  always."  The  distinction  of  just  and  unjust  is  not  created 
by  society,  but  the  opportunity  of  acting  in  conformity  to  the 
distinction  is  so  created. 

The  reasons  why  the  state  must  exist  before  morality  can  be 
externally  realised  are,  as  stated  by  Hobbes,  two. 

1.  No  one  can  tell  what  particular  outward  acts  are  to  be 
considered  just  or  unjust  until  some  competent  authority  has 
provided  definitions.  "To  the  Sovereignty  is  annexed  the  whole 
power  of  presenting  the  rules  whereby  every  man  may  know  what 
goods  he  may  enjoy,  and  what  actions  he  may  do,  without  being 
molested  by  any  of  his  fellow  subjects."  "As  for  example,  of 
what  is  to  be  called  right,  what  good,  what  virtue,  what  much, 
what  little,  what  meum  and  tuum,  what  a  pound,  what  a  quart, 
etc." 

2.  No  one  can  venture  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  abstract 
principles  of  which  he  may  be  aware  until  he  has  reason  to  believe 
that  others  also  will  do  so.  "It  suits  not  with  reason  that  any  man 
should  perform  first,  if  it  be  not  likely  that  the  other  will  make 


GRIFFIN  155 

good  his  promise  after."  "Therefore  before  the  names  of  just 
and  unjust  can  have  place  there  must  be  some  coercive  power  to 
compel  men  equally  to  the  performance  of  their  covenants; 
and  such  power  there  is  none  before  the  erection 
of  a  Commonwealth." 

For  two  reasons,  then,  the  social  compact,  the  sovereign  com- 
monwealth, is  a  precedent  condition  of  justice;  its  authority 
is  needed,  first,  to  define  what  justice  is,  and,  second,  to  ensure 
objective  fulfilment  of  it. 

In  each  of  these  particulars  the  analogy  which  we  are  tracing 
holds  good. 

The  establishment  of  an  international  court  would  provide 
facilities  for  determining  questions  of  justice  and  injustice  in 
international  relations  such  as  the  world  has  not  hitherto  known. 
As  we  all  understand,  international  law  has,  up  to  the  present 
time,  developed  in  a  desultory  and  unscientific  manner.  Accepted 
usages,  treaties  at  the  close  of  wars.  Congresses  such  as  those  of 
Vienna  and  Berlin,  and  of  late  The  Hague  Conferences,  have  fur- 
nished ks  materials.  The  decisions  reached  have  often,  as  some 
one  has  said,  been  of  the  nature  of  a  post-mortem;  they  have  had 
no  preventive  value.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  procure  a  prompt 
settlement  of  any  acute  and  threatening  question  that  may  sud- 
denly arise.  The  advantages  of  a  permanent  and  authoritative 
tribunal  to  which  questions  endangering  the  peace  of  nations  could 
be  immediately  submitted  are  too  obvious  to  call  for  insistence. 
Justice  and  injustice,  so  far  as  international  relations  are  con- 
cerned, would  take  on  a  new  meaning,  and  would  have  a  potency 
hitherto  undreamed  of,  if  they  could  thus  be  defined,  whenever 
occasion  should  arise,  in  regular  process  of  law. 

Whether  express  provision  would  be  needed  to  compel  the 
acquiescence  of  interested  parties  in  the  decisions  that  might 
be  rendered,  is  a  question  about  which  there  may  be  difference  of 
view.  It  would  seem  proper  that  such  provision  should  be  made. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that,  in  the  case  of  self-respecting 
nations,  any  coercion,  other  than  the  moral  constraint  of  en- 
lightened public  opinion,  would  be  required. 


156  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

These  are  the  points  which  I  have  endeavored  to  illustrate 
by  reference  to  Hobbes's  Leviathan. 

1.  The  present  attitude  of  the  civilized  nations  toward  one 
another  is  essentially  that  of  war. 

2.  The  evils  of  such  a  condition  are  so  grievous  and  terrible 
as  to  threaten  the  very  fabric  of  our  civilization. 

3.  The  remedy  is  in  an  international  agreement  providing 
for  the  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes. 

4.  A  tribunal  constituted  for  this  purpose  would  ensure: — 
first,  the  determination  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  nations,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  give  to  the  principles  and  rules  governing 
international  intercourse  a  definiteness  and  consistency  not  as 
yet  attained;  second,  the  carrying  of  these  obligations  into  effect, 
through  the  constraint  of  the  public  sentiment  of  mankind. 

The  great  historian  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire 
has  extolled  the  period  of  the  Flavian  and  Antonine  emperors 
as  one  of  unexampled  felicity.  "If  a  man  were  called  to  fix 
the  period  in  the  history  of  the  world  during  which  the  condition 
of  the  human  race  was  most  happy  and  prosperous,  he  would, 
without  hesitation,  name  that  which  elapsed  from  the  death  of 
Domitian  to  the  accession  of  Commodus."  This  was  the  period 
of  the  Pax  Romana,  when,  as  another  historian  has  said,  ''within 
the  sacred  limits  of  the  Roman  Terminus,  the  repose  of  the 
empire  was  calm,  passive,  and  almost  deathlike.  The  shores  of 
the  mighty  ocean  might  still  resound  with  the  murmurs  of  the 
eternal  conflict  of  servitude  and  freedom,  but  the  depths  of  its 
central  abysses  were  unmoved  alike  by  winds  and  currents." 
But  this  peace  of  the  empire  extended  only  over  lands  actually 
occupied  by  the  Roman  legions,  and  it  was,  at  best,  only  a  breath- 
ing space — a  brief  interval  of  less  than  a  hundred  years.  If 
the  endeavors  of  those  who  seek  to  bring  about  the  establishment 
of  a  high  court  of  arbitral  justice  should  be  crowned  with  success, 
we  may  hope  that  peace  would  be  inaugurated  far  more  benign 
and  far  more  enduring — not  a  Pax  Romana,  the  Roman  peace, 
but  a  Pax  Humana,  the  peace  of  the  human  race. 


SLAYDEN  157 

Chairman  Wilson:  The  next  address  will  be  on  the  "Rela- 
tion of  the  United  to  other  American  Governments,  as  They  Are 
and  as  They  Should  Be,"  by  Hon.  James  L.  Slayden,  Member  of 
Congress,  from  Texas.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  presenting  Hon. 
James  L.  Slayden. 

THE  RELATIONS   OF  THE  UNITED   STATES  TO 
OTHER  AMERICAN  GOVERNMENTS 

JAMES   L.    SLAYDEN 

The  relations  of  the  United  States  to  the  other  American  states 
are  unique  and  of  the  highest  political  importance. 

Of  consequence  originally  because  they  were  parts  of  the  same 
continent  the  relationship  now  has  other  and  vastly  greater 
reasons  for  this  importance. 

Before  the  development  in  steam  transportation  made  them 
neighbors  they  were  separated  by  almost  impossible  distances. 
Today  the  journey  from  Buenos  Aires,  Santiago  or  Rio,  that  was 
once  remarkable  and  the  achievement  in  travel  of  a  lifetime,  is 
a  mere  commonplace.  No  part  of  America  is  remote  from  any 
other  part.  The  sanitation  of  any  one  city  or  country  is  a  matter 
of  grave  concern  to  every  other;  the  political  quiet  and  the  unim- 
peded flow  of  trade  in  each  touches  more  or  less  the  life  of  all 
others.  Population  and  commerce  have  grown  in  the  most  extra- 
ordinary way.  The  Americas  have  become  a  big  part  of  the 
world  and  the  adjustment  of  purely  American  affairs  among  the 
American  governments  is  of  proportionate  importance.  We 
ought  to  deal  justly  with  all  governments  everywhere,  we  ought 
to  live  on  terms  of  amity  with  the  whole  world,  but  it  is  peculiarly 
our  duty,  as  it  is  specially  our  interest,  to  live  on  just  and  friendly 
terms  with  our  neighbors. 

In  1823  a  British  premier  in  a  private  letter  to  the  diplomatic 
representative  of  his  country  in  Spain  while  referring  to  the  United 
States  and  another  country  on  this  continent  said:  "They  are  too 
neighborly  to  be  friends." 

That  cynicism,  I  regret  to  say,  was  founded  in  a  knowledge  of 
history  and  the  passions  of  men. 


158  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Is  it  as  true  today  as  it  was  then  that  mere  proximity  makes 
enmity  between  men?  If  it  is,  the  world  has  not  moved  towards 
higher  and  better  things  as  I  had  hoped,  and  we  are  in  contempt 
of  the  greatest  authority  that  ever  tried  to  regulate  the  affairs  of 
men  by  refusing  to  obey  the  injunction  "love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself." 

There  is  every  reason  why  the  United  States  should  be  on 
terms  of  affectionate  political  intimacy  with  the  other  govern- 
ments of  this  continent.  They  profess  the  same  political  faith 
that  we  hold;  they  have  flattered  us  by  modeling  their  govern- 
ments on  ours  and  it  cannot  be  truthfully  said  that  any  one  of 
them  has  ever  menaced  us  in  our  territory  or  sovereignty.  As 
we  set  out  to  walk  so  have  they  also  undertaken  to  travel.  We 
gave  them  a  set  of  political  principles  and  now  it  is  our  duty  to 
leave  them  an  opportunity  to  develop  along  the  lines  that  may 
seem  best  to  them. 

OUR    GOVERNMENT   THE    MODEL 

In  the  eighteenth  century  effort  to  transfer  power  from  church 
and  king  to  the  people,  the  English  colonies  in  America  were 
leaders.  It  was  the  success  of  the  movemefit  that  they  led  and 
the  setting  up  of  a  government  by  the  people  that  was  safe  and 
conservative,  while  it  also  protected  life  and  property,  that  at 
once  commanded  the  attention  of  the  world.  In  royal  circles 
it  caused  apprehension;  among  the  people  whose  contributions 
kept  lustre  in  the  purple  of  the  kings  it  developed  high  hopes  that 
justified  the  fears  of  their  masters. 

Among  the  supporters  of  kings  the  methods  of  the  young  repub- 
lic were  sneered  at  and  its  quick  collapse  predicted.  Instead  of 
crumbling  it  waxed  strong  and  its  fame  spread  the  length  and 
breadth  of  this  vast  continent.  It  became  an  exemplar  for  all 
liberty  loving  American  communities. 

Information  of  what  was  done  by  Washington,  Franklin, 
Adams  and  Jefferson  spread  from  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  River 
Plate.  It  crossed  the  Andes  and  forced  its  way  through  tropical 
jungles,  carrying  light  and  hope  to  the  oppressed  sons  of  men 


SLAYDEN  159 

everywhere,  alike  on  the  mountain  tops  and  by  the  sea  at  the 
equator. 

Kings  who  saw  the  menace  to  their  system  of  personal  govern- 
ment in  the  new  movement  pointed  to  the  violent  and  unreason- 
able outburst  in  France  as  evidence  of  the  incapacity  of  men  to 
govern  themselves.  It  did  bring  discredit  to  the  republican  sys- 
tem for  a  while, — but  for  a  brief  while  only. 

The  conspicuous  success  of  the  American  republic  had  a  liberal- 
izing effect  on  governments  of  the  old  world  and  became  an 
example  and  inspiration  for  the  new. 

INFLUENCE   IN    SPANISH   AMERICA 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  small  wonder  that  Spain's 
American  colonies  rapidly,  one  by  one,  asserted  their  own  inde- 
pendence and  set  up  republics  similar  to  that  in  North  America. 

At  that  time  Europe  was  either  too  much  occupied  with  the 
Napoleonic  wars  or  too  exhausted  as  a  consequence  of  them 
to  give  much  attention  to  American  affairs.  The  Spanish-Ameri- 
can population  was  not  large  and  aside  from  the  output  of  gold 
and  silver  the  colonies  were  not  important  commercially.  It 
v:as  not  interest  in  the  people  of  the  colonies  or  the  commerce 
of  South  and  Central  America  that  finally  stirred  Europe  to  action 
but  the  alarming  spread  of  the  republican  idea. 

Just  as  soon  after  the  passing  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  the 
organization  of  the  Holy  Alliance  as  Europe  could  catch  its  breath 
preparations  were  made  to  deal  with  America. 

The  "Holy  Alliance"  determined  *'to  put  an  end  to  the  system 
of  representative  government"  and  to  "destroy  the  liberty  of 
the  press." 

Originally  the  Prince  Regent  of  England  had  given  his  adhesion 
to  the  schemes  of  the  allied  monarchs  but  their  reactionary  pro- 
gram was  not  to  the  taste  of  the  British  government  and  it  was 
withdrawn.  The  hostile  spirit  that  grew  out  of  the  difference  of 
opinion  between  constitutional  England  and  Continental  Europe 
subsequently  had  a  marked  influence  on  the  history  of  our  own 
country,  particularly  as  our  affairs  touch  those  of  other  American 
governments. 


l6o  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

By  the  time  the  royal  allies  were  ready  to  begin  the  execution 
of  their  program  in  America  the  United  States  had  grown  largely 
in  wealth  and  population.  The  second  war  with  England  was 
ten  years  to  the  rear  and  "the  call  of  the  blood"  which,  after  all, 
is  stronger  and  will  endure  longer  than  any  political  exigency, 
had  made  friends  of  the  two  great  English  speaking  countries. 

Great  Britain  did  not  look  with  favor  on  the  project  of  the  royal 
allies  to  use  their  combined  resources  in  an  effort  to  reestablish 
Spanish  authority  in  America  and  of  course  it  encountered  a  hos- 
tile spirit  in  the  United  States. 

At  that  very  time,  when  our  interests  and  those  of  England  were 
happily  concurrent,  George  Canning,  the  English  foreign  minister, 
advised  Mr.  Rush,  the  American  minister,  that  his  government 
did  not  sympathize  with  the  effort  of  the  European  allies  to  force 
Spain's  revolted  American  colonies  to  renew  their  allegiance  to 
the   mother   country. 

Rush  promptly  communicated  the  important  message  to  the 
President,  James  Monroe.  Mr.  Monroe  consulted  Thomas 
Jefferson  and  James  Madison,  both  of  whom  were  in  retirement 
in  Virginia,  and  chiefly  on  the  advice  of  Thomas  Jefferson  the 
President  put  into  his  message  of  December  2,  1823,  the  language 
that  gave  us  what  has  ever  since  been  known  as  the  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

WHAT   IT   IS 

This  much  talked  of  and  generally  misunderstood  doctrine, 
that  is,  without  doubt,  the  most  important  of  all  our  foreign  poli- 
cies, was  conceived  solely  as  a  measure  of  defense.  That  Mr. 
Monroe  himself  so  regarded  it  is  clealy  deducible  from  the  lan- 
guage in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Jefferson  written  on  the  seventeenth 
of  October,  1823,  the  same  letter  in  which  he  sent  the  dispatches 
from  Minister  Rush  that  contained  the  Canning  suggestion.  He 
said:  "My  own  impression  is  that  we  should  meet  the  proposal 
of  the  British  government,  and  to  make  it  our  own,  that  we  should 
view  an  interference  on  the  part  of  the  European  powers  and  espec- 
ially an  attack  on  the  colonies  as  an  attack  on  ourselves,  presum- 
ing that  if  they  succeed  with  them  they  would  extend  it  to  us." 


SLAYDEN  l6j 

If  any  student  of  this  question  will  take  the  trouble  to  read 
Jefferson's  letter  to  the  President,  written  in  October  1823,  and 
the  message  of  December  2,  he  need  not  remain  in  doubt  as  to  the 
precise  meaning  of  the  policy  that  bears  the  name  of  Monroe. 

It  does  not  set  up  a  protectorate  over  the  other  American 
governments.  It  does  not  confer  upon  the  United  States  the 
right  to  censor  or  regulate  the  internal  affairs  of  any  other  coun- 
try. It  does  not  give  us  the  right  to  intervene  when  their  domes- 
tic affairs  are  in  turmoil  nor  between  them  and  any  other  coun- 
try when  they  have  unsettled  questions. 

It  does  not  give  us,  as  many  Americans  seem  to  think,  the  right 
to  collect  debts  by  force  of  arms. 

It  does  not  even  assert  the  right  of  this  government  to  control 
the  form  of  government  that  other  American  countries  may  have. 
Under  it  we  have  no  right  to  protest  if  every  country  on  the  con- 
tinent from  Mexico  to  Chile  should  exchange  the  republican  form 
of  government  for  an  autocracy.  We  might  find  some  other 
reason  for  doing  so  but  certainly  we  could  not  under  such  cir- 
cumstances interfere  because  of  the  rule  laid  down  by  James 
Monroe.  It  does  not  seek  to  protect  any  country  against  just 
punishment  for  the  breaking  of  treaties  or  wrongs  to  the  citizens 
of  another  government.     Now  let  us  see  what  it  really  does. 

Disputed  passages  of  the  Holy  Scripture  that  worry  the  com- 
mentators are  often  cleared  up  by  reading  the  bible  itself.  Just 
so  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Even  a  casual  examination  of  the 
authorities  discloses  the  fact  that  after  all  it  is  a  simple,  easily 
understood   matter. 

Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  letter  of  October,  1823,  that  outlined  to  Mr. 
Monroe  what  in  his  judgment  should  be  our  policy  said:  "We  aim 
not  at  the  acquisition  of  any  of  these  possessions  .... 
but  we  will  oppose  with  all  our  means  the  forcible  [interposition 
of  any  other  power  .  .  .  and  most  especially  their  trans- 
fer to  any  power  by  conquest,  cession  or  acquisition  in  any  other 
way." 

That  letter  supplemented  by  Monroe's  message  made  the  "doc- 
trine." 

Here  is  Monroe's  own  language:  "The  occasion  has  been  judged 


l62  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

proper  for  asserting  as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the  American  conti- 
nents, by  the  free  and  independent  station  which  they  have 
assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as 
subjects  for  future  colonizing  by  any  European  power." 

Of  course  the  President  meant  political  colonies. 

Again  he  says:  "We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the 
amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United  States  and  those 
powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their 
part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as 
dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety"  and  .  .  .  .  "we 
could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing 
them,  or  controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any 
European  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of 
an  unfriendly  disposition  towards  the  United  States." 

Jefferson's  letter  and  the  message  of  President  Monroe  should 
be  conclusive  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  But 
the  views  of  our  great  statesmen  may  be  more  convincing  to  some. 
Daniel  Webster  said  of  it  in  1826:  "The  amount  of  it  was  that 
this  government  could  not  look  with  indifference  on  any  combina- 
tion among  other  powers  to  assist  Spain  in  her  war  against  the 
South  American  States;  that  we  could  not  but  consider  any  such 
combination  as  dangerous  or  unfriendly  to  us."  In  another 
speech  in  the  same  year  he  said,  "it  did  not  commit  us  to  take  up 
arms  on  any  indication  of  hostile  feeling  by  the  powers  of  Europe 
towards  South  America." 

Richard  Olney  of  Massachusetts,  secretary  of  state  in  the 
administration  of  Grover  Cleveland  also  defined  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  a  letter  of  instructions  that  he  sent  Minister  Bayard 
during  the  consideration  of  the  Venezuelan  boundary  question. 
He  said  "It  does  not  establish  a  general  protectorate  by  the  Uni- 
ted States  over  other  American  states.  It  does  not  relieve  any 
American  state  from  its  obligations  as  fixed  by  international  law 
nor  prevent  any  European  power  directly  interested  from  enforc- 
ing such  obligations  or  from  inflicting  merited  punishment  for 
the  breach  of  them.  It  does  not  contemplate  any  interference 
in  the  internal  affairs  of  any  American  state  or  in  the  relations 


SLAYDEN  163 

between  it  and  other  American  states The  rule 

in  question  (the  Monroe  Doctrine)  has  but  a  single  purpose  and 
object.  It  is  that  no  European  power  or  combination  of  Euro- 
pean powers  shall  forcibly  deprive  an  American  state  of  the  right 
and  power  of  self-government  and  of  shaping  for  itself  its  own 
political  fortunes." 

That  dispat-ach  of  the  secretary  of  state  is  a  clear  and  complete 
definition  of  what  was  meant  by  Mr.  Monroe  in  his  famous  mes- 
sage. It  so  clearly  and  positively  defines  the  limitations  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  that  there  has  never  been  any  reason  since  its 
publication  why  there  should  be  doubt  as  to  its  meaning.  The 
positive  assertion  that  it  did  ''not  contemplate  any  interference 
in  the  internal  affairs  of  any  American  state"  is  particularly  per- 
tinent now  when  so  many  thoughtless  people  are  urging  interfer- 
ence in  the  affairs  of  Mexico  and  invoking  the  rule  called  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  as  authority  for  the  unwarranted  and  trouble  breed- 
ing course  they  propose. 

General  John  W.  Foster  of  Washington,  formerly  secretary  of 
state,  an  eminent  international  lawyer  and  with  a  broader  experi- 
ence in  diplomatic  service  than  any  living  American,  concurs 
heartily  in  the  opinion  so  ably  presented  by  Mr.  Olney. 

DOES  NOT  PROTECT  DEFAULTING  GOVERNMENTS 

The  impression  of  many  people  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
is  an  aegis  that  will  protect  every  government  on  this  hemisphere 
against  merited  punishment  for  its  evil  deeds  or  laches  is  alto- 
gether wrong.  Even  the  former  President  of  the  United  States 
whose  strongest  claim  to  the  attention  of  posterity  is  associated 
with  a  club  and  threats  of  violence  said  as  much  in  his  message 
to  Congress  in  December,   1901. 

Whatever  we  may  think  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  personally  and  of 
his  policies  it  can  not  be  denied  that  he  always  expressed  himself 
in  clear,  strong  language. 

He  said  "We  do  not  guarantee  any  state  against  punishment 
if  it  misconducts  itself,  provided  that  punishment  does  not  take 
the  form  of  acquisition  of  territory  by  any  non-American  power." 


164  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Mr.  Roosevelt  in  that  same  message  gave  his  definition  of  the 
doctrine,  and  the  correct  one,  let  me  say.  He  wrote:  ''The  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  is  a  declaration  that  there  must  be  no  territorial 
aggrandizement  by  any  non-American  power  on  American  soil." 
That  from  the  head  of  the  tribe  of  Jingos  ought  to  be  conclusive 
as  to  its  meaning  even  among  those  who  repudiate  the  teachings 
of  Jefferson,  Monroe,  Webster,  Olney  and  Foster. 

Some  people  may  be  wicked  enough  to  observe  that  the  inhibi- 
tion of  the  ex-president  applies  only  to  non-American  powers, 
although  the  makers  of  the  policy  disavowed  any  such  design  on 
our  part  also. 

DOES  NOT  MAKE  THE  UNITED  STATES  A  BAD  DEBT  COLLECTOR 

Senator  Rayner  has  lately  shown  eloquently  and  clearly,  that 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  did  not  make  us  an  agent  to  collect  doubtful 
loans  made  by  European  usurers.  He  has  indicated  with  scorch- 
ing wit  what  would  be  the  consequences  of  a  policy  that  would 
drive  us  into  stock  jobbers'  and  money  lenders'  wars. 

A  great  deal  of  needless  confusion  seems  to  exist  in  the  public 
mind  as  to  the  extent  to  which  a  nation  may  interfere  in  order  to 
protect  the  business  of  its  citizens  as  against  the  foreign  nations 
of  their  residence.  The  belief  seems  to  be  deliberately  encouraged 
in  some  quarters  that  wherever  American  citizens  or  American 
owned  property  may  be  subject  to  attack  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  constitute  itself  their  defender  even  to  the  extent 
of  sending  armed  bodies  of  troops  upon  foreign  soil.  No  more 
mischievous  conception  could  be  entertained.  It  is  a  negation  of 
the  true  functions  of  government  that  are  well  expressed  in  the 
preamble  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States: 

*'We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more 
perfect  Union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquility, 
provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the  general  welfare  and 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity, 
do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of 
America." 

Not  a  word  is  said  about  the  furtherance  of  American  invest- 


SLAYDEN  165 

ments  upon  foreign  soil.  Not  one  syllable  is  uttered  with  regard 
to  creating  for  Americans  when  abroad  a  better  situation  than  is 
enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  foreign  country.  We 
were  engaged  in  forming  such  a  government  as  would  "secure  the 
blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity."  Our  prime 
duty  was  and  is  to  insure  justice  at  home,  not  to  enforce  our  own 
methods  and  ideas  upon  unwilling  nations,  or  to  pass,  as  it  were, 
judicial  decrees  of  injunction  against  foreign  nations,  and  our- 
selves put  into  execution  upon  foreign  soil  the  decrees  we  might 
so  pass. 

The  man  who  goes  abroad  does  not  take  with  him  the  liberties 
he  enjoys  at  home,  nor  does  he  carry  on  his  back  what  we  consider 
the  blessings  of  the  common  law.  When  he  plants  his  foot  upon 
foreign  soil  he  accepts  the  conditions  there  existing.  If  the  forms 
of  law  are  more  rigorous  than  are  known  at  home;  if  their  manner 
of  execution  be  more  severe;  if  the  government  be  less  able  than 
his  own  to  insure  him  the  blessings  of  liberty,  there  is  only  to  be 
said  to  him  that  he  has  chosen  the  bed  and  in  it  he  must  lie. 

All  this  is  not  to  say  that  the  foreign  government  may,  without, 
redress,  execute  upon  him  and  his  property  lawless  acts,  or  to 
say  that  it  may  permit  its  citizens  to  injure  or  destroy  the  Ameri- 
can or  the  property  of  the  American  who  dwells  among  them.  But 
it  is  to  say  that  he  has  accepted  the  chances  of  revolution  or  dis- 
order in  the  country  of  such  government,  equally  with  its  citizens 
or  subjects,  and  that  equally  with  them  he  has  accepted  the  cus- 
tomary appHcation  of  its  laws. 

Many  times  in  the  past  it  has  happened  that  Americans  abroad 
have  been  the  object  of  peculiar  attack  because  they  were  Ameri- 
cans, and  often  has  it  been  the  case  that  Americans  have  been 
subjected  to  especial  injustice  at  the  hands  of  foreign  courts. 
Again  national  governments  have  broken  faith  with  them.  In 
many  of  these  instances  the  friendly  offices  of  our  government 
have  been  sought  to  insure  for  our  citizens,  not  special  but  just 
treatment.  Often  without  hesitation  relief  has  been  freely  ac- 
corded and  in  some  instances  when  not  so  accorded  by  agreement 
between  the  two  countries  the  matters  in  dispute  have  been 
referred  to  a  competent  tribunal  for  adjudication,  the  results  of 


l66  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

whose  work  have  been,  as  a  matter  of  course  and  without  protest, 
accepted  by  both  parties.  This  line  of  conduct  has  internationally 
hardened  into  a  custom  that  has  become  a  rule  of  international 
law. 

The  course  pursued  by  us  is  that  also  followed  by  other  coun- 
tries. In  the  winter  of  1902-03  the  combined  fleets  of  England 
and  Germany,  joined  later  by  Italy,  created  what  was  known  as 
the  Pacific  Blockade  of  certain  Venezuelan  ports.  Prior  thereto 
English  and  German  subjects  had  been,  through  the  action  of  the 
Venezuelan  government,  or  its  officials,  plundered  or  wrongfully 
killed,  contracts  with  them  had  been  broken  and  in  other  ways 
they  had  suffered.  The  complaining  nations  might  have  required 
their  citizens  to  seek  relief  in  the  national  courts  of  Venezuela, 
but  internationally  they  were  not  compelled  to  do  so,  the  more 
so  because  such  relief  as  might  have  been  accorded  foreigners  before 
the  Venezuelan  courts  in  making  such  complaints  was  hedged 
around  with  peculiar  difficulties,  causing  a  foreigner  justly  to  hesi- 
tate in  making  an  appeal  to  the  local  judiciary.  In  this  state  of 
affairs  England  and  Germany  applied  not  once  but  many  times  to 
the  Venezuelan  government  for  relief  for  wrongs  inflicted  upon 
their  subjects,  Venezuela  sheltering  herself  behind  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  that  undertakes  to  limit  foreigners  to  such 
redress  as  Venezuelan  citizens  might  receive  upon  recourse  to  the 
local  courts,  and  refused  arbitration.  The  blockade  only  took 
place  after  continued  refusals,  and  its  result  was  the  reference  of 
the  claims  in  dispute  to  three  arbitral  tribunals  that  granted  appro- 
priate relief. 

Internationally  the  course  of  the  great  powers  enumerated  was 
strictly  correct.  They  did  not  take  the  law  in  their  own  hands 
until  Venezuela  had  persistently  refused  to  afford  or  accord  them 
the  relief  it  was  internationally  her  duty  to  afford. 

Let  us,  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  consider  the  extent  to  which 
the  United  States  may  proceed  in  the  direction  of  protecting  the 
rights  of  its  citizens  abroad.  It  may  call  the  attention  of  the  for- 
eign offices  of  other  countries  to  abuses  perpetrated  against  Ameri- 
cans, or  violations  of  governmental  contracts  by  which  they  have 
been  sufferers.     It  may  insist  that  resort  be  had  to  arbitration  if 


SLAYDEN  167 

no  settlement  be  ejffected.  Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  arbitra- 
tion it  may  require  compliance  with  the  award  of  the  arbitrators. 
All  this  is  proposed  with  regard  to  contract  debts  in  the  following 
provision  of  the  Hague  Convention  respecting  the  Umitation  of  the 
employment  of  force  for  their  recovery. 
Article   i : 

"The  contracting  powers  agree  not  to  have  recourse  to  armed 
force  for  the  recovery  of  contract  debts  claimed  from  the  govern- 
ment of  another  country  as  being  due  to  its  nationals.  This 
undertaking  is,  however,  not  applicable  where  the  debtor's  state 
refuses  or  neglects  to  reply  to  an  offer  of  arbitration,  or,  after 
accepting  the  offer,  prevents  any  compromise  from  being  agreed  on, 
or,  after  the  arbitration,  fails  to  submit  to  the  award." 

ITS   IMPORTANCE   HAS   PASSED 

The  rule  laid  down  by  Mr.  Monroe  served  a  good  purpose  one 
time  but  the  necessity  for  it  passed  long  ago.  When  announced 
it  was  a  means  of  defense  for  a  weak  country. 

Once  an  asset  of  value  it  is  now  an  obligation.  In  the  popular 
view  it  has  the  effect  of  making  us  politically  responsible  where 
no  compensating  advantage  is  to  be  found.  Personally  I  can  see 
no  harm  to  come  from  its  frank  abandonment,  at  least  so  far  as  it  is 
supposed  to  interdict  colonization. 

One  can  not  be  very  proud  of  those  timid  Americans  who  trem- 
ble with  fright  because  a  few  score  thousands  of  Germans,  men  of 
our  own  race  and  blood,  have  settled  in  Brazil. 

A    SOUTH   AMERICAN   VIEW 

So  far  as  I  am  advised  the  people  of  South  America  do  not  want 
us  to  protect  them  against  the  settlement  of  white  Europeans  on 
their  unoccupied  lands.  They  do  not  beUeve  that  we  have  the 
right  to  assert  a  policy  that  will  retard  the  development  of  their 
resources  and  I  must  own  that  I  think  their  position  is  well  taken. 

In  a  recent  issue  of  the  Century  Magazine  Mr.  J.  D.  Whelpley 
who  wrote  from  Buenos  Aires  quoted  a  prominent  Argentino  as 
asking:  "What   do   Americans   want  here?     We  know  you  want 


1 68  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

trade — that  is  natural — and  when  you  send  us  capital  and  take 
our  produce  you  can  have  it.  But  what  else  do  you  want?  Why 
this  enthusiasm  for  the  Pan-American  idea?  We  are  afraid  of 
you  because  we  do  not  understand.  Do  you  want  to  control  our 
foreign  relations?  That  is  what  we  fear  and  we  resent  it,  we  do 
not  like  to  be  patronized  and  we  resent  it.  We  are  a  great  nation 
and  we  can  take  care  of  ourselves." 

Mr.  Whelpley  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  South  America 
the  traveler  finds  no  fear  of  England  or  Germany  in  the  matter 
of  territorial  aggrandizement,  or  undue  influence  in  the  field  of 
South  American  politics.  Such  fear  as  exists  is,  he  says,  directed 
entirely  towards  the  United  States  and,  here  I  quote  Mr.  Whelp- 
ley's  words,  "more  distrust  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  encountered 
among  the  people  whom  it  was  designed  to  protect  than  among 
those  in  Europe  against  whom  it  was  directed." 

IMPROPER     INTERFERENCE      WITH      OTHER      GOVERNMENTS 

The  danger  in  the  policy  is  that  it  may  lead  to  an  improper  inter- 
ference in  the  affairs  of  other  countries.  There  is  never  an  inter- 
nal row  in  some  of  those  countries  that  are  inclined  to  rows  that 
certain  "yellow"  newspapers  and  excitable  people  do  not  set  up 
a  clamor  for  intervention.  It  is  a  constantly  recurring  danger  and 
it  takes  calm  judgment  and  clear  heads  in  the  administration  to 
keep  out  of  a  situation  that  holds  nothing  but  trouble  for  the  med- 
dler. The  danger  of  intervention  is  recognized  by  other  American 
governments  and  no  matter  how  much  we  may  try  to  hide  the  ugly 
fact  behind  the  polite  phrases  of  diplomacy  it  has  begotten  a  feel- 
ing of  suspicion  and  hostility. 

Spanish-American  countries  deny  our  right  to  act  as  censor  of 
their  affairs.  They  say  that  they  are  free,  independent  and  sover- 
eign states  and  as  such  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  respect  and 
consideration  that  is  shown  the  most  powerful  government  on 
earth. 

They  admit  no  degrees  of  sovereignty  but  hold  with  Vattel  that 
"nations  inherit  from  nature  the  same  obligations  and  rights,  and 
that  power  and  weakness  could  not,  in  this  respect,  produce  any 


SLAYDEN  169 

difference,  the  smallest  republic  being  no  less  a  sovereign  than  the 
most  powerful   kingdom." 

John  Marshall,  our  eminent  Chief  Justice,  who  it  will  be  admitted 
had  almost  as  much  knowledge  of  law  and  the  rights  of  sovereignty 
as  the  editors  and  their  clients  who  clamor  for  intervention  in  Mex- 
ico, held  and  strongly  expressed  the  view  of  the  perfect  equality 
of  nations. 

How  much  it  would  contribute  to  political  calm  and  to  the  main- 
tenance of  peace  if  the  amateur  diplomats  and  long  range  warriors 
who  for  some  time  have  been  clamoring  for  the  dispatch  of  an  army 
to  a  neighboring  country  to  interfere  in  a  purely  family  quarrel 
could  only  be  persuaded  to  concur  in  the  views  of  Marshall,  Olney, 
Adams  and  Jefferson! 

OUR   DUTY   TO   OTHER   AMERICAN   STATES 

Primarily  our  duty  to  other  American  states  is  to  let  them  alone, 
to  give  them  an  opportunity  to  develop  along  those  lines  that  seem 
best  to  themselves,  only  holding  them  to  a  strict  respect  for  the 
obligations  of  international  law,  an  obligation,  by  the  way,  which  is 
mutual. 

They  have  a  right  to  demand  that  we  shall  treat  them  as  we 
would  have  them  treat  us  if  conditions  were  reversed,  if,  in  other 
words,  they  were  strong  and  we  were  weak.  We  preach  this  doc- 
trine of  the  Golden  Rule  as  the  only  proper  line  of  conduct  for 
individual  men  in  their  relations  with  each  other. 

Will  the  time  ever  come  when  we  shall  see  it  applied  to  govern- 
ments? I  hope  so,  but  I  am  afraid  it  is  a  long  way  off.  It  is  a 
curious  and  shameful  fact  that  while  individual  honesty  appears 
to  be  the  rule  among  men  there  seems  to  be  no  real  national  integ- 
rity. People  with  a  true  perspective  of  morals  are  often  pain- 
fully shocked  to  hear  men  of  good  standing,  men  who  in  their 
personal  affairs  are  scrupulously  honest  and  gentle,  violently  sup- 
port the  propaganda  of  war  and  national  theft.  Without  knowing 
anything  about  the  real  situation,  scorning  the  doctrine  of  the 
Golden  Rule  and  of  common  honesty,  they  vehemently  demand 
that  the  government  shall  adopt  a  policy  that  means  war  and 


IJO  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

conquest.  Now,  war  and  conquest  means  the  killing  of  other  of 
God's  creatures  who  have  as  good  a  right  to  hve  as  we  have,  and 
conquest  means  the  taking  from  them  of  something  to  which  they 
have  a  good  title,  at  least  a  recognized  title,  and  we  have  none  at 
all. 

The  recent  noisy  and  unjustified  demand  for  intervention  by 
our  government  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Mexico  is  a  case  in  point. 
The  government  of  Mexico  is  not  the  government  that  we  would 
like.  Nor  is  that  of  France,  or  Germany,  or  Great  Britain.  But 
it  is  the  sort  of  government  that  the  Mexicans  have  setup  for  them- 
selves and  its  form  and  facts  are  not  our  concern  so  long  as 
international  obligations  are  discharged.  That  was  the  view  of 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  it  is  the  correct  view  today. 

For  years  we  have  been  trying  to  remove  the  suspicion  with 
which  Spanish  America  views  this  government  and  its  policies. 
The  hostility  that  grows  out  of  that  suspicion  impedes  the  develop- 
ment of  international  trade  and  so  it  is  economically  hurtful. 
The  best  efforts  of  the  President,  acting  for  all  the  people,  and  of 
wise  and  just  men  everywhere  who  neither  want  to  kill  nor  rob 
their  neighbors  are  largely  neutralized  by  the  thoughtless  and  wil- 
fully criminal. 

There  is  the  soldier  of  fortune  about  whose  activities  we  have 
heard  so  much  lately.  He  is  a  grotesque  and  unattractive  survival 
of  the  least  worthy  period  of  knight  errantry.  Perhaps  it  would 
be  more  accurate  to  say  that  he  is  a  descendant  of  the  robber  hordes 
that  infested  Germany  after  the  Thirty  Years  War.  There  is  no 
reason  for  his  existence.  He  is  a  criminal  anarchronism  and  if 
he  should  figure  in  the  list  of  casualties  we  would  be  easily  recon- 
ciled. He  respects  no  laws.  His  purpose  in  life  is  to  overthrow 
government  and  to  substitute  chaos  for  order,  turbulence  for 
peace,  and  for  all  that  unworthy  work  he  holds  himself  for  hire. 

INADEQUATE   NEUTRALITY   LAWS 

One  of  the  best  ways  in  the  world  of  maintaining  peace  is  to  have 
a  good  code  of  neutrality  and  to  enforce  it.  Ours,  I  am  sorry  to 
say,  has  been  shown  to  be  shamefully  inadequate. 


SLAYDEN  171 

For  some  time  civil  war  has  been  raging  in  Mexico.  It  is 
notorious  that  the  insurrectos,  so  called,  have  been  equipped  from 
the  United  States  both  with  men  and  arms.  Everybody  has 
known  it  but  the  agents  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  The  news- 
papers have  heralded  the  expeditions  and  from  day  to  day  have 
given  circumstantially  the  movements  of  the  filibusters.  They 
have  usually  gone  out  as  advertised  in  the  schedule  and  with  rare 
exceptions  have  connected  with  the  insurrectos  whom  they  were 
proposing  to  aid. 

In  the  San  Antonio  Express,  of  April  11,  there  appeared  as  an 
ordinary  item  of  news  a  statement  "more  arms  and  ammunition 
for  the  revolutionists  have  gone  Westward."  It  also  said  that 
United  States  officials  there  were  advised  of  the  movement  but 
could  do  nothing. 

The  same  issue  of  the  San  Antonio  paper  had  several  items  tell- 
ing of  the  activities  of  the  fiHbusters.  We  have  been  expected  to 
sympathize  with  anarchists  and  socialists  from  California  and 
graduates  of  American  colleges  who  were  burning  railroad  bridges 
and  lifting  cattle  from  such  ranches  as  had  the  misfortune  to  fall 
within  the  sphere  of  their  activity. 

Indeed  it  appears  that  we  have  done  nearly  everything  possible 
to  arouse  the  hostility  of  the  mass  of  the  Mexican  people  and  to 
cause  all  Spanish  Americans  to  think  that  we  are  trying  to  develop 
an  excuse  for  intervention  and  conquest. 

I  can  not  trespass  on  your  attention  to  argue  the  unwisdom  of 
political  association  with  people  who  speak  a  different  language 
and  who  have  different  ideas  of  government.  About  that  many 
convincing  things  might  be  said.  I  shall  content  myself  with 
calling  to  the  attention  of  this  great  Peace  Congress  a  resolution 
that  I  first  offered  in  the  late  Congress  and  which  was  promptly 
and  unanimously  reported  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be 
passed.  It  was  first  proposed  in  a  great  convention  of  business 
men  and  unanimously  approved. 

It  briefly  outlines  an  American  policy  that  will  make  for  peace. 
It  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  natural  and  proper  supplement  to  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  It  will  renew  the  waning  confidence  of  the 
Central  and  South  American  people  in  that  doctrine,  for  it  will  be 


172  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

a  pledge  of  honesty  and  fair  dealing.  It  merely  proposes  that 
the  various  American  governments  shall  mutually  agree  that 
hereafter  no  territory  shall  be  transferred  from  one  to  the  other  as 
a  consequence  of  war.  It  proposes  a  treaty  that  will  simply  say 
that  the  American  governments  in  the  future  shall  not  steal  terri- 
tory from  each  other.  It  will  be  mightily  helped  along  if  you  will 
formally  approve  it  here.  I  will  read  the  resolution,  which  is 
brief  and  for  which  I  earnestly  ask  the  exercise  of  your  influence. 

"Whereas,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Trans- Mississippi  Commercial 
Congress,  now  in  convention,  the  peace  and  the  commercial  devel- 
opment of  the  American  Continent  would  be  more  certainly  and 
speedily  secured  if  the  various  South,  Central,  and  North  Ameri- 
can governments  were  reasonably  assured  against  the  forced  per- 
manent loss  of  territory  as  a  consequence  of  war  or  otherwise; 
Therefore  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be 
requested  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  the  making  of  a  treaty 
that  will  forever  quiet  the  territorial  titles  of  the  various  Ameri- 
can states." 

Let  the  doctrine  of  that  resolution  be  accepted  by  the  whole  of 
America  and  it  will  be  a  long  step  towards  world  wide  peace. 
There  is  nothing  strange  in  the  suggestion.  It  has  been  adopted 
by  Germany,  Denmark,  France,  Great  Britain,  The  Netherlands 
and  Sweden  in  a  formal  and  mutual  guaranty  of  the  territorial 
integrity  of  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Baltic,  which  is  epochal 
in  its  importance. 

Under  the  wise  direction  of  such  bodies  as  yours  and  with  the 
policy  suggested  in  this  resolution  we  may  hope  to  have  the  wes- 
tern world,  at  least,  looking  for  reasons  to  keep  the  peace  and  not 
for  causes  of  war. 

Chairman  Wilson:  I  am  sure  that  all  must  have  listened 
with  great  interest  to  the  able  address  of  Mr.  Slayden,  who  speaks 
as  a  man  in  business,  a  man  in  politics,  and  a  man  who  has  time 
also  to  be  an  idealist. 

Before  introducing  the  next  speaker,  however,  I  feel  it  my  duty 
to  interpolate  a  very  few  words.     As  this  is  a  national  and  not  an 


BOATWRIGHT  173 

international  Peace  Conference,  we  are  speaking  of  our  own  govern- 
ment and  I  share  Mr.  Slayden's  views  of  the  injurious  effect  of 
sometimes  false  expressions  of  opinion  by  what  he  referred  to  as 
*'amatuer  diplomatists,"  and  having  been  fourteen  years  in  the 
government's  service  as  professional  diplomatist,  I  want  to  say 
that  I  do  not  share  Mr.  Slayden's  pessimism  as  to  governmental 
integrity  in  diplomacy.  I  think  if  he  will  come  to  Pennsylvania 
Avenue  and  Seventeenth  Street  we  can  show  him  a  Foreign  Office 
which  boasts  of  complete  candor  and  sincerity. 

Only  one  other  word  as  to  neutrality  laws  and  filibustering.  It 
is  unfortunately  true  since  the  very  beginning,  that  whenever  an 
American  Republic  had  any  sort  of  war,  on  both  sides  they  have 
endeavored  to  draw  American  citizens  into  their  ranks,  and  there 
have  been  some  brilliant  soldiers  of  fortune  from  the  great  State  of 
Texas  many  years  ago,  and  the  filibustering  habit  grew  to  a  deplor- 
able stage,  where  certain  sections  of  our  population  cease  to  regard 
un-neutral  acts  as  wrong.  I  think  the  stand  of  President  Taft 
in  the  Honduras  ca;se  and  in  case  of  the  exceedingly  thorough  meas- 
ures taken  to  enforce  the  neutrality  laws  throughout  a  long  frontier 
through  military  policing,  as  well  as  the  machinery  of  three  or  four 
different  parts  of  the  government,  have  been  admitted  as  entirely 
satisfactory  by  the  Federal  government  of  Mexico,  and  I  think 
should  be  viewed  with  confidence  by  the  American  people. 

I  have  the  pleasure  now  of  introducing  Prof.  F.  W.  Boatwright, 
President  of  Richmond  College,  who  will  speak  on  "The  College  and 
Arbitration." 

THE  COLLEGE  AND  ARBITRATION 

F.    W.    BOATWRIGHT 

Among  the  vital  institutions  of  our  age  the  college  holds  high 
rank.  While  character  is  formed  continuously  throughout  child- 
hood and  adolescence,  it  crystalizes  most  rapidly  during  the  college 
period.  Special  interests  consume  the  time  and  energy  of  the 
graduate  student,  but  the  undergraduate  of  a  standard  college 
ranges  widely  for  mental  food.     He  opens  his  heart  to  many  causes, 


174  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

and  more  or  less  consciously  reflects  upon  the  great  motives  and 
appeals  of  life.  He  is  an  idealist,  ready  to  believe  in  the  good,  and 
to  espouse  noble  causes.  Hard  contact  with  the  world  has  not 
yet  chilled  his  faith  or  his  ardor.  He  believes  in  men  and  in  his 
own  powers. 

To  such  youth  the  glamour  of  war  has  always  strongly  appealed. 
The  first  call  to  arms  has  changed  the  American  College  campus 
into  a  drill  ground  and  the  college  into  an  armed  camp.  This  was 
preeminently  true  in  the  Civil  War,  and  was  repeated  even  in  our 
brief  war  with  Spain.  As  in  other  vocations,  so  in  the  business  of 
war  the  colleges  have  furnished  leaders. 

When,  therefore,  men  come  together  to  consider  how  nations 
may  adjust  their  differences  without  resort  to  war,  it  is  becoming 
to  inquire  what  may  be  done  to  direct  the  thought  of  college  men 
and  women  into  new  and  nobler  channels,  and  how  we  may  marshall 
the  colleges  under  the  banners  of  international  peace.  Other 
national  and  international  organizations  have  not  been  unmindful 
of  the  possibilities  of  the  college.  The  International  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
recruits  its  forces  from  the  college.  The  student  volunteer  move- 
ment which  has  sent  its  ambassadors  of  peace  into  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  earth  has  drawn  its  secretaries  and  organizers  from 
the  colleges.  The  great  foreign  mission  societies  of  the  various 
churches,  with  their  wide  outlook  and  their  statesmanlike  grasp 
of  the  future  not  only  seek  their  missionaries  chiefly  among  college 
graduates  but  they  have  recently  employed  their  ablest  speakers 
to  go  as  traveling  lecturers  from  college  to  college  in  order  that 
the  needs  of  less  advantaged  peoples  may  be  presented  to  young 
men  and  women  about  to  choose  their  vocations.  Several  national 
Sunday  School  Boards  have  yet  more  recently  undertaken  a  simi- 
lar task,  and  their  well  equipped  lecturers  are  finding  ready  hearing 
in  both  the  denominational  and  the  tax-supported  colleges  of 
America.  Why  should  not  the  college  be  the  forum  in  which  shall 
be  discussed  all  causes  which  appeal  to  the  higher  sentiments  of 
men?  The  colleges  seek  more  and  more  to  carry  knowledge  and 
inspiration  to  all  the  people.  Why  should  not  the  leaders  of  great 
popular  causes  plead  before  the  choice  youth  gathered  today  in 
the  halls  of  our  American  colleges?     It  may  well  be  that  traveling 


BOAT  WRIGHT  1 75 

professors  shall  become  far  more  common  than  they  are  today, 
and  the  local  faculty  be  supplemented  by  experts  sent  out  by 
great  central  boards.     The   General  Education  Board  and  the 
Carnegie  Foundation  have  mightily  strengthened  the  colleges  in 
special  ways,  and  the  facts  just  cited  show  a  growing  tendency  to 
reinforce  the  local  faculties  of  our  American  colleges.     Suppose  our  ^ 
distinguished  publicist.  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  should  give  ten  lee-   / 
tures  on  peace  topics  before  one  of  our  colleges,  and  that  this  course,    v 
open  to  all  students  and  the  public,  should  be  maintained  for   ) 
ten  years  by  lecturers  of  similar  ability;  what,  think  you,  would 
be  the  attitude  toward  peace  of  the  graduates  of  such  a  favored 
college?     Suppose  fifty  men  and  women,  such  as  the  membership 
of  this  Congress  can  supply,  should  accept  traveling  lectureships, 
each  to  twenty  schools  with  courses  of  ten  lectures  in  every  school? 
We  would  reach  one  thousand  schools,  with  ten  thousand  addresses,      q 
heard  by  not  less  than  a  million  potential  leaders  of  the  nation,  j 
Repeat  the  process  for  a  decade,  and  estimate  if  you  can  the  tre- 
mendous harvest  of  goodwill  made  effective  by  this  seed  sowing. 
Some   such   comprehensive   plan   may   well   contribute   to   the 
great  cause  of  universal  arbitration.     Either  by  means  of  funds 
already  established  or  upon  foundations  yet  to  be  created,  scholarly, 
inspirational  men  and  women  must  be  sent  into  our  colleges  to 
teach  our  future  moulders  of  opinion  the  criminal  wastes  of  war  \,  ^ 
and  the  reasonableness  of  universal  arbitration.     The  cold  facts 
now  condemn  war  beyond  the  need  of  further  words.     But  war 
does  not  cease.     Nor  do  we  not  expect  war  to  disappear  until  it 
is  banished  by  the  enlightened  sentiment  of  the  nations.     Then 
we  should  lose  no  time  in  sowing  the  seeds  of  peace  in  our  semi- 
naries for  youth.     In  the  college  period,  hope  is  at  floodtide,  ideals 
are  forming  that  will  dominate  life,  the  ties  of  fellowship  and 
brotherhood  are  sweetest.     It  is  the  dream  time,  and  yet  the  time 
when  the  impulses  harden  into  life  purposes.     At  such  a  time  let 
the  peace   advocate  come,   not  himself  a  sentimentalist,   though  /"  ** 
he  must  have  caught  a  vision  of  the  age  "when  men  shall  beat  their 
swords  into  plowshares,  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks,  and  shall 
learn  war  no  more."     Let  him  come  around  with  facts  and  figures, 
and,  standing  on  the  firm  ground  of  knowledge,  make  his  appeal  to 


176  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  unselfish  sentiments  of  youth.  Thus,  it  seems  may  a  volume 
of  public  opinion  be  created  which  will  soon  be  irresistible.  Some 
declare  that  already  peace  sentiment  grows  rapidly.  When  we 
think  only  of  the  obstacles,  the  national  habits  of  centuries  and  the 
vast  armaments  of  the  present,  this  seems  to  be  true.  But  on  the 
other  hand  when  we  consider  the  accumulated  fund  of  human 
experience  hostile  to  war,  of  the  intercourse  of  nations  in  trade  and 
travel,  of  the  disregard  of  boundaries  wrought  by  steam  and  elec- 
tricity, of  the  mighty  power  of  the  press  and  the  printed  page,  we 
wonder  at  the  tardiness  and  apathy  of  the  nations  to  this  noble 
cause.  Reflection  convinces  us  that  while  more  men  think  than 
ever  before,  nevetheless  men  follow  their  leaders  now  much  as 
Frenchmen  followed  Peter  the  Hermit.  Leaders  with  hearts 
fired  by  moral  earnestness  command  the  fealty  of  their  fellow  men 
today  as  in  the  past.  Such  advocates  of  peace  must  be  found  not 
only  in  every  great  city  or  at  every  capital,  but  in  small  towns 
and  in  country  communities.  Why  do  our  American  peace  socie- 
ties, and  I  speak  particularly  of  my  own  State,  languish  and  fail 
to  command  public  interest?  Because  our  nation  does  not 
intend  to  wage  aggressive  war  and  fears  no  invader?  In  part,  yes. 
But  if  our  country  is  to  fulfil  her  evident  duty  and  to  grasp  the  hon- 
orable opportunity  that  is  hers,  she  must  feel  the  oppression  that 
weighs  heavily  on  old  world  nations,  must  realize  something  of 
how  they  are  bound  hand  and  foot  by  tradition  and  hoary  prece- 
dent, and  America  must  awake  to  action.  The  awakening  will 
come  most  quickly  by  winning  the  hearts  and  voices  of  the  high 
hearted  youth  of  our  country  gathered  in  ,t'he  various  seminaries 
of  learning  from  high  school  to  university. 

Certain  essences  poured  into  streams  near  their  sources  will  tinge 
their  waters  even  after  they  chafe  against  distant  shores,  and  the 
ideas  for  which  this  Congress  stands  will  carry  farthest  when  intro- 
duced into  the  higher  schools.  The  fertile  soil  is  ready  in  every 
seat  of  learning,  and  seed  sown  now  may  in  less  than  a  generation 
bring  forth  fruit  which  shall  be  for  the  healing  of  the  nations. 

Chairman  Wilson  :  Inasmuch  as  the  afternoon  session  begins  at 
two  o'clock,  and  many  of  you  are  desiring  to  return,  there  is  very 


BOATWRIGHT  1 77 

little  time  left  for  discussion,  but  the  President  of  the  Congress 
has  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  these  meetings  were 
intended  to  give  the  freest  opportunity  for  discussion  and  suggested 
that  any  short  remarks  would  be  very  desirable. 

Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  I  rise  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  afternoon  program  is  a  long  one,  and  the  regular 
meeting  of  the  American  Peace  Society  is  called  for  four  o'clock 
this  afternoon.  We  hope  you  will  all  be  here  at  two  o'clock 
promptly,  so  that  we  can  get  through  the  regular  program  of  the 
Congress  by  four  o'clock.  I  want  to  say  that  we  hope  to  see  every 
member  of  the  American  Peace  Society  present,  and  while  this  is  a 
meeting  of  the  members  of  that  Society,  if  there  are  any  other  per- 
sons here  who  feel  conscience-smitten  that  they  have  not  already 
joined,  they  will  be  welcome  to  attend,  and  after  they  have  become 
members  they  can  take  part  in  the  meeting.  We  hope  that  all 
the  members  of  the  Society  will  remain,  as  the  meeting  is  a  very 
important  one.  The  meeting  is  supposed  to  be  held  in  this  room 
immediately  following  the  close  of  the  Congress. 

(Upon  motion  duly  made,  seconded  and  passed,  the  meeting 
was  adjourned  until  two  o'clock), 

ADJOURNED. 


FOURTH  SESSION 

Thursday  Afternoon,   May  4,  at  two  o'clock 

Hon.  Theodore  E.  Burton,  Presiding  Officer 

Chairman  Burton:  The  particular  object  of  today's  gathering 
is  to  secure  among  numerous  organizations  efficient  cooperation 
in  efforts  for  the  promotion  of  peace  and  to  avoid  collision  or  dupli- 
cation of  the  respective  branches  of  work.  It  is  impracticable 
to  unite  in  one  central  body  all  the  societies  which  are  laboring  for 
this  end.  At  the  outset  we  are  confronted  with  marked  diversities 
of  opinion  represented  in  peace  and  arbitration  societies  in  the 

o    United  States.     Some  favor  the  expansion  of  our  navy  and  the 
fortification  of  the  Panama  Canal.     There  are  few,  if  any,  advo- 

<^  cates  of  absolute  disarmament.  The  desirability  of  a  sufiicient 
naval  force  which  man  for  man  and  gun  for  gun  shall  be  as  efficient 
as  any  in  the  world  is  very  generally  recognized.  There  are 
wide  differences  of  opinion,  however,  as  to  what  constitutes  a 
sufiicient  force.  There  are  among  us  earnest  advocates  of  an 
abatement  of  the  present  naval  program  of  battleship  construc- 
tion. Our  views  are  based  not  upon  any  idealistic  anticipation 
that  wars  have  passed,  but  upon  the  exceptional  position  of  our 
^  country.  We  enjoy  a  magnificent  isolation.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  maintain  frowning  fortresses  upon  our  borders.  For  example, 
we  are  about  to  celebrate  the  one-hundredth  anniversary  of  an 
arrangement  with  Canada  under  which  we  have  lived  in  peace  with 
an  unprecedented  freedom  of  communication  and  of  neutral  inter- 
course. In  the  broad  field  of  foreign  relations,  we  have  settled 
numerous  perplexing  and  irritating  disputes  by  arbitration  and 
have  taken  a  front  rank  among  the  nations  advocating  this  method 
for  the  settlement  of  controversies. 

It  is  not  assuming  too  much  to  say  that  other  nations  vouch- 
safe to  our  sense  of  international  justice  an  exceptional  confidence. 

178 


BURTON  179 

The  advocates  of  an  abatement  in  our  naval  program  think  we 
can  largely  rely  upon  the  growth  of  a  rational  public  opinion  and 
the  development  of  a  cosmopolitan  civilization  which  is  more  and 
more  extending  beyond  national  boundaries  and  creating  a  soli- 
darity of  interests  which  every  year  renders  war  more  nearly  impos- 
sible. 

There  are,  however,  opinions  in  which  all  the  advocates  o\ 
peace  are  in  accord.  All  will  agree  that  the  rapidly  growing  bur- 
den of  military  and  naval  expenditures,  now  amounting  to  nearly 
two  billions  per  year,  is  causing  economic  disturbances  and  an 
increase  of  taxation  which  in  some  nations  is  well  nigh  intolerable. 
Again,  moral  and  intellectual  forces  were  never  more  potently 
arrayed  against  war  than  today.  All  again  are  agreed  that  the 
ultimate  solution  must  be  the  development  of  judicial  tribunals 
for  the  settlement  of  controversies  and  the  maintenance  of  order 
among  the  nations  similar  to  those  which  prevail  within  the  nations. 
All  will  unite  in  laying  increased  emphasis  upon  the  imperfection 
of  a  civilization  in  which  quarrels  between  nations  are  settled  by 
the  slaughter  of  human  beings.  The  time  is  ripe  for  the  accom~ 
plishment  of  the  most  beneficent  results.  To  secure  these  results 
there  must  be  an  education  of  public  opinion  which  is  the  all  pre- 
vailing force  in  our  country.  The  public  needs  a  more  vivid  reali- 
zation of  the  great  facts  which  confront  us  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  decade  of  the  twentieth  century — the  enormous  growth  of 
naval  armaments,  the  greatly  increased  cost  of  armed  peace,  the 
increasing  interference  with  orderly  and  helpful  material  develop- 
ment which  these  cause,  the  continuance  of  ideals  and  methods 
which  do  not  appeal  to  the  most  refined  spirit  of  the  age,  such  as 
fondness  for  military  conflict  and  the  arbitrament  of  disputes  by 
the  sword. 

It  is  especially  important  that  arguments  which  are  presented 
should  be  popular  in  their  nature,  that  moral  and  intellectual 
reasons  for  peace  should  be  reinforced  by  portraying  the  waste  of 
the  world's  resources  and  by  pointing  out  how  helpful  these  great 
expenditures  would  be  in  ameliorating  the  condition  of  the  unfor- 
tunate and  the  weak.  All  this  involves  no  disparagement  of  the 
military  or  naval  heroes  of  the  past  or  any  disrespect  for  the  armies 


J 


l8o  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

and  navies  of  the  present.  No  doubt  in  earlier  periods  there  were 
standards  of  self-sacrifice  and  maybe  of  patriotism  infinitely  in 
advance  of  those  of  the  present  day.  But  conditions  in  these  times 
were  characterized  by  a  cruder  civilization  in  which  the  necessity 
for  defense  was  pressing  and  there  was  an  absence  of  orderly  means 
for  the  settlement  of  disputes. 

In  the  education  of  the  people  public  speaking  and  the  dissemi- 
nation of  appropriate  literature  are  primary  requisites.  It  is 
desirable  that  the  membership  of  peace  societies  should  be  increased 
and  that  efl5cient  preparation  to  do  something  should  manifest 
itself  among  all  of  them.  Organizations  should  include  churches, 
schools  and  colleges.  The  advantages  of  peace  should  be  forcibly 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  commercial  bodies  of  the  country 
and  to  the  innumerable  army  of  toilers.  A  well  organized  body 
can  make  its  influence  felt  with  Congress  in  obtaining  helpful  legis- 
lation. It  is  impossible  to  overstate  the  benefits  which  have  been 
accomplished  by  peace  societies  and  by  the  great  meeting  held  in 
the  cause  of  peace,  including  the  National  Peace  Congess  at  New 
York  in  1907  and  at  Chicago  in  1909,  and  the  International  Con- 
gress at  Boston  in  1904.  The  American  Branch  of  the  Inter- 
parliamentary Union  has  done  its  work  in  the  international  field. 
Other  societies  have  labored  for  the  organization  of  judicial  tri- 
bunals as  suggested  at  the  two  Hague  Conferences  of  1899  and 
1907  and  the  perfection  of  the  details  of  organization,  so  that 
these  tribunals  may  command  confidence  and  be  ready  for  the. 
prompt  and  satisfactory  disposition  of  controversies.  The  codifi- 
cation of  the  body  of  international  law,  as  contemplated  by  one  of 
of  the  socieites  in  the  United  States,  is  altogether  desirable,  so  that 
from  the  rather  confused  mass  of  agreements  and  decisions  in  inter- 
national controversies  a  body  of  harmonious  comprehensive  regu- 
lations may  be  obtained  and  conflicting  decisions  may  be  harmon- 
ized if  possible. 

The  question  of  immediate  importance  before  the  country  today 
is  the  proposed  arbitration  treaty  with  Great  Britain.  Let  this  be 
once  adopted  and  the  greatest  benefit  in  the  cause  of  peace  which 
has  been  accomplished  for  many  decades  wiU  have  been  gained. 
If  ratified,  other  nations  will  recognize  its  benefits  and  follow  after^ 


BARRETT  l8l 

The  world  will  turn  aside  from  thoughts  of  conflict  to  thoughts  of 
peace.  Let  us  fervently  hope  that  the  year  will  not  pass  without 
the  presentation  of  such  a  treaty  and  its  ratification  by  the  Senate. 

Auspicious  omens  greet  us.     Those  who  gather  in  191 1  for  this        i^y 
conference  at  Baltimore  may  have  a  serene  confidence  that  they  n^ 
are  laboring  in  a  cause  which,  so  sure  as  the  future  is  marked  by    '    *^^ 
progress,  is  bound  to  triumph.     More  than  ever  before,  those  who 
have  hoped  and  toiled  for  the  dawn  of  peace  are  inspired  to  labor  >  •:>  ^'^^ 
on  with  the  thought  that  success  is  near.     The  reproach  that 
efforts  for  the  prevention  of  warfare  are  visionary  may  yet  be  suc- 
ceeded by  the   general   admission   that   these  efforts  have  been 
intensely  practical  and  of  the  greatest  benefit  not  only  to  our 
common  country  but  to  the  great  family  of  nations. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  there  is  a  considerable  number  of  speak- 
ers this  afternoon  and  I  am  told  that  the  time  is  necessarily 
limited  to  ten  minutes  for  each  speaker.  I  am  glad  to  introduce 
Hon.  John  Barrett  of  the  Pan-American  Union. 

THE  PAN-AMERICAN  UNION 

JOHN  BARRETT 

Mr,  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  am  not  going  to  dis- 
cuss peace  itself,  because  I  beheve  that  subject  has  been  mentioned 
once  or  twice  in  the  last  two  or  three  days,  but  I  am  going  to  say 
just  a  word  about  an  organization  that,  by  its  work,  is  perhaps  the 
greatest  organization  in  this  country  for  the  development  of  peace. 
The  underlying  principle  of  peace  among  men  and  women,  among 
towns  and  cities  and  countries  is  mutual  acquaintance.  The  Pan- 
American  Union,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  of  being  the  chief 
executive  officer,  is  the  only  institution  of  its  kind  in  the  wide  world 
supported  by  a  group  of  nations  and  devoted  absolutely  to  the 
purpose  of  the  development  of  commerce,  friendship  and  peace 
among  the  twenty-one  nations  of  the  western  hemisphere.  That 
is  a  common  cause  which  appeals  to  every  practical  man  and 
woman  of  America,  whether  he  be  of  the  United  States  or  of  the 
countries  to  the  south  of  us.  The  Pan-American  Union  was 
organized  some  twenty  years  ago  under  the  guiding  influence  of 
Mr.  James  G.  Blaine,  and  then  it  started  upon  its  work  of  informing 


l82  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

the  United  States  about  the  twenty  republics  Ijdng  to  the  south 
of  us  and  informing  the  twenty  republics  to  the  south  of  us 
about  the  United  States.  It  led  a  dignified  and  honorable  ex- 
istence for  nearly  sixteen  years,  but  in  the  great  material  rush 
of  progress  of  our  country,  it  was  almost  forgotten,  when  there 
came  as  the  head  of  the  State  Department  one  of  the  greatest 
secretaries  of  state  that  this  country  has  ever  produced,  one  of 
the  greatest  living  statesmen,  Elihu  Root  of  New  York. 

And  he  recognized  the  fact  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary,  if 
this  country  was  going  to  occupy  its  proper  position  in  the  world, 
and  also  among  the  nations  of  the  world,  for  peace  and  commerce, 
that  it  should  secure  the  cooperation  of  the  other  twenty  countries 
and  they  should  work  for  the  good  of  all.  He  made  his  wonderful 
journey  through  South  America,  a  journey  unprecedented  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  and  he  was  received,  in  every  capital  of  Latin 
America  visited,  with  as  much  acclaim  and  enthusiasm  as  if  he  had 
been  the  crowned  monarch  of  some  European  land.  With  the  cooper- 
ation of  the  ambassadors  and  ministers  of  the  twenty  countries,who 
are  credited  to  the  nation,  at  Washintgon,  the  Pan-American  Union 
was  reorganized  upon  a  new  basis  of  activity,  and  since  then  it  has 
been  going  forward  with  an  acceleration  of  speed  and  influence  and 
of  power,  until  today  it  has  resulted  in  its  becoming  the  most 
active  agency  for  the  development  of  peace  throughout  the  world. 
The  Pan-American  Union  is  controlled  by  a  governing  board  made 
up  of  the  ambassadors  and  ministers  representing  the  twenty 
republics  of  Latin  America,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  who  is  chairman  ex  officio  inasmuch  as  the  office  is  located 
in  Washington.  This  governing  Board  in  turn  elects  the  direct- 
or-general and  the  assistant  director,  which  are  its  executive  offi- 
cers, and  they  therefore  are  international  officers,  and  it  is  a  great 
privilege,  as  I  stand  before  you  today,  to  be  not  merely  an  officer 
of  the  United  States,  but  an  officer  of  Cuba,  Mexico,  Argentine, 
Chile  and  all  the  other  sister  republics  to  the  south  of  us. 

We,  as  executive  officers,  are  assisted  by  a  large  staff  of  interna- 
tional experts,  statisticians,  lawyers,  clerks  and  stenographers, 
librarians  and  others,  who  are  conducting  the  work  of  correspon- 
dence and  dissemination  of  knowledge  and  information  of  which 
only  those  who  investigate  our  work  can  have  a  true  appreciation. 


BARRETT  1 83 

If  I  would  enumerate  to  you  all  the  activities  this  afternoon  of  the 
Pan-American  Union,  you  would  say,  "Why  is  it  that  I  in  my  busy 
life  have  not  realized  that  there  was  this  organization  in  Wash- 
ington carrying  on  this  work  and  trying  to  make  these  countries 
familiar  with  each  other."  Our  correspondence  has  grown  in 
four  years  from  eight  hundred  letters  to  over  six  thousand  a  month; 
our  distribution  of  printed  matter  in  regard  to  these  countries 
has  grown  in  these  four  years  from  about  sixty  thousand  pieces 
of  printed  matter  in  a  year  to  about  nearly  one  million.  Four 
years  ago  only  about  lo  per  cent  of  the  members  of  Congress  in 
any  way,  shape  or  form,  used  the  Pan-American  Union.  This 
year  97^  per  cent  of  the  total  membership  took  advantage  and  made 
use  of  this  organization.  A  few  years  ago  only  a  very  few  of  the 
American  nations  made  use  of  it;  last  year  every  nation  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth  through  some  of  its  officials  sent  to  us  for  infor- 
mation and  received  information  from  us.  Four  years  ago  there 
was  no  way  of  tracing  the  work  of  the  Pan-American  Union.  Since 
that  time  we  have  been  responsible  by  direct  efforts  for  over  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miUion  dollars  of  new  commerce  and  trade 
between  North  and  South  America.  We  were  responsible  for  the 
International  Peace  Conference  of  the  Central  American  Republics. 
We  have  been  continually  exercising  an  influence  throughout  Latin 
America  for  peace  and  better  understanding  and  friendship  among 
these  nations. 

I  wish  I  could  picture  to  you  our  new  building  which  was  erected 
through  the  beneficence  and  munificence  of  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie. 
Four  years  ago  we  were  in  a  little  house  on  the  corner  of  Lafayette 
Square  and  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  Now  we  occupy  a  building 
which  a  great  French  architect  has  stated  to  be  the  most  beau- 
tiful in  the  world.  The  latchstring  of  this  beautiful  building  is 
loose  to  every  man  of  North  and  South  America  who  may  be 
interested  in  knowing  more  about  the  commerce  existing  between 
these  sister  Republics.  Tomorrow  afternoon  at  three  o'clock  the 
twenty-one  nations  of  the  western  hemisphere,  represented  by  their 
ambassadors  and  ministers  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  assisted  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  will  present 
to  Mr.  Carnegie  in  that  hall  a  unique  medal,  a  proceeding  unpre- 
cedented in  the  history  of  the  people  of  all  America,  as  a  recogni- 


o 


184  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tion  of  what  he  has  done  for  international  peace  and  good  will, 
and  especially  in  recognition  of  his  gift  of  $750,000  for  the  erection 
of  that  structure  which  will  stand  for  all  times  as  a  monument, 
which  will  make  nations  better  acquainted,  and  which  will  promote 
peace  and  better  understanding  among  them.  I  wish  almost  that 
this  Conference  might  adjourn  so  that  all  of  you  could  go  there  and 
join  in  this  tribute  that  will  be  made  to  that  great  citizen  of  all  the 
world.  It  is  remarkable  that  at  the  Buenos-Ayres  Conference, 
held  in  the  capital  of  Argentina,  last  year,  the  representatives  of  all 
the  American  nations  unanimously  passed  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  this  medal  should  be  presented  to  Mr.  Carnegie,  a  gold  medal, 
on  one  side  of  which  should  be  the  words,  ''Benefactor  of  Human- 
ity," and  on  the  other  side,  "The  American  Republics  to  Andrew 
Carnegie."  He  is  so  proud  of  it  that  he  says  he  regards  it  as  the 
greatest  honor  that  has  ever  been  conferred  upon  him  in  his  life. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  I  have  only  one  word  more  to  add; 
that  is  in  regard  to  the  field  of  the  Pan-American  Union.  I  want 
to  see  the  men  and  women  of  this  country,  while  paying  due  atten- 
tion to  Europe,  due  attention  to  Asia,  to  remember  at  the  same  time 
that  to  the  south  of  us  are  twenty  Republics,  ambitious,  with  the 
same  problems  to  solve  as  we  have  before  us,  looking  to  our  coun- 
try, looking  to  our  sense  of  public  spirit,  looking  to  our  men  and 
women  for  direction  and  leadership  as  no  other  group  of  nation  in 
the  world  are  doing;  looking  to  us  for  sympathy,  looking  to  us  for 
cooperation  which  will  enable  them  to  solve  their  problems  and 
grow  stronger  and  stronger. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  let  us  not  flirt  with  Europe  and  Asia 
alone.  Let  us  not  sit  in  cozy  corners  with  Italy  and  Germany  and 
France  and  China,  but  let  us  gather  the  sisters  of  our  own  family 
to  the  South  about  us  and  show  them  the  way  to  peace  and  better 
understanding  among  nations.  Let  us  not  think  merely  of  the 
great  arbitration  treaty  with  England  but  let  us  think  of  an  arbi- 
tration treaty  to  which  all  the  American  RepubKcs  will  be  signers 
and  then  we  will  have  a  peace  that  is  potent,  unrivalled  and  un- 
equalled in  the  history  of  the  world. 

Yes,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  let  us  be  friendly  with  these  twenty 
nations  to  the  south  of  us,  everyone  of  them  having  their  constitu- 


CALL  185 

tion  framed  upon  ours;  everyone  of  their  leaders  who  won  their 
independence  for  them  took  their  example  and  their  inspiration 
from  George  Washington;  everyone  today  is  trying  to  solve  this 
problem  and  to  perform  its  mission  of  being  a  successful,  indepen- 
dent republic,  by  profiting  by  our  experience.  Be  not  misled  by 
some  of  the  reports  that  come  to  you  of  revolutions  and  internal 
troubles  as  there  has  been  no  revolution  in  two-thirds  of  Latin 
America  for  the  last  fifteen  years.  The  trouble  in  Mexico  today  is 
only,  as  it  were,  the  darkness  before  the  dawn  of  a  progress  in  devel- 
opment in  that  RepubHc  which  will  astonish  the  world.  It  was 
fortunate  indeed  that  we  heard  those  words  yesterday  from  Presi- 
dent Taft  which  mean  so  much  to  Latin  America.  We  must 
remember  that  every  Latin  American  nation  has  its  sovereignty 
just  as  much  as  we  have  ours,  and  we  must  respect  their  rights  of 
independence.  Those  words  that  President  Taft  spoke  in  this 
city  yesterday  have  been  flashed  over  the  wires  and  today  every 
great  newspaper  in  Latin  America  is  repeating  and  the  people  of 
those  countries  are  rejoicing  at  the  words  of  President  Taft  that 
we  care  not  for  territorial  aggrandizement  and  care  not  for  an 
annexation  of  other  countries. 

As  you  go  over  those  areas,  I  ask  you  to  stop  one  instant  and 
let  your  vision  be  broadened  beyond  that  of  our  own  land,  beyond 
that  of  Europe  and  Asia  and  other  parts  of  the  world  and  remember 
that  there  are  seventy  millions  of  men  and  women  with  red  cor- 
puscles in  their  blood  just  like  yours  who  look  to  you  to  help  them, 
to  fraternize  with  them  and  advise  them  in  solving  the  great  prob- 
lems of  the  western  hemisphere. 

Chairman  Burton:  I  now  take  pleasure  in  introducing  Mr. 
A.  D.  Call,  of  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society. 

THE    CONNECTICUT    PEACE    SOCIETY 

ARTHUR  DEERIN   CALL 

I  have  but  a  short  and  simple  tale.  I  come  from  the  little  State 
of  Connecticut,  which,  some  of  you  may  remember,  is  in  the  north- 
eastern part  of  our  country,   a  State  unjustly  and  erroneously 


1 86  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

described  as  "the  land  of  the  wooden  nutmeg,"  a  State  called  with 
equal  injustice  and  error  I  confess  "the  land  of  steady  habits." 
Fresh  from  the  New  England  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress  of 
but  a  year  ago,  I  bring  from  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society  and 
many  Connecticut  friends  of  peace  heartiest  greetings  and  con- 
gratulations to  this  splendid  national  peace  congress. 

Connecticut's  faith  in  the  ultimate  cessation  of  war  is  an  ancient 
faith.  We  of  that  tight  little  New  England  Commonwealth  are 
proud  members  of  the  ancient  and  honorable  artillery  of  the  sol- 
diers of  peace.  Our  faith  harks  back  at  least  to  the  year  1814, 
the  year  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  and  of  Noah  Worcester's 
Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom  of  War  begging  for  a  publisher.  As 
early  as  1835  there  were  three  peace  societies  with  headquarters 
in  Hartford,  Connecticut.  Inspired  by  William  Ladd  and  organ- 
ized as  an  auxiliary  of  the  American  Peace  Society  in  1828,  there 
was  the  Hartford  County  Peace  Society  with  an  initial  membership 
of  one  hundred  and  two  persons.  There  was  also  the  Connecticut 
Peace  Society  which  had  been  organized  in  183 1.  At  the  second 
annual  meeting  of  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society,  held  in  the  meet- 
ing house  owned  by  the  worshiping  descendants  of  Thomas  Hooker, 
there  were  nearly  fifteen  hundred  persons  present.  We  have 
records  of  this  society  sending  out  at  that  early  date  thousands  of 
pamphlets  in  the  interest  of  peace.  It  was  this  society  which  started, 
in  1834,  The  Advocate  of  Peace,  still  the  greatest  official  advocate 
of  peace  in  the  English  language..  In  1834  this  same  Connecticut 
Peace  Society  presented  a  plea  for  a  "supreme  tribunal,"  and 
offered  one  thousand  dollars  for  the  best  essay  on  that  subject. 
One  of  our  recent  periodicals  says  of  Mr.  Norman  Angell's  note- 
worthy book.  The  Great  Illusion,  that  it  is  the  one  oyster  in  the  lit- 
erary stew  over  international  disarmament  and  universal  peace. 
In  what  President  Taft  evidently  considers  the  overflowing  plate 
of  peace  organizations,  there  are  many  fine  morsels.  The  Connec- 
ticut Peace  Society  aspires  to  the  dignity  of  being  one  such,  but 
adjures  all  kinship  with  the  raw  or  underdone.  Besides  the  Hart- 
ford County  Peace  Society  and  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society, 
there  was  also  in  Hartford,  Connecticut  in  the  year  1835  the  Ameri- 
can Peace  Society.     At  that  time  this  Society  had  eight  directors, 


CALL  187 

six  of  whom  were  Hartford  men.  I  repeat,  Connecticut's  interest 
and  faith  in  the  ultimate  abolition  of  war  are  an  ancient  interest, 
and  an  ancient  faith. 

Connecticut  is  interested  in  her  past,  but  she  is  also  interested 
in  her  present  and  in  her  future.  Connecticut's  recent  interest  and 
faith  in  the  substitution  of  law  for  force  between  the  nations  has 
been  an  outgrowth  from  the  fine  enthusiasms  of  such  rare  spirits 
as  Edwin  D.  Mead,  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  and  others,  an  enthus- 
iasm and  faith  founded  directly  in  the  teaching  of  that  broad- 
shouldered  Quaker  giant,  respected  dean  of  America's  faculty  of 
prefessors  of  peace,  I  am  constrained  to  add,  the  noblest  Roman  of 
them  all,  the  fearless  and  indefatigable  secretary  of  the  American 
Peace  Society,  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood. 

Since  1906  our  society  has  been  especially  active  and  most 
agreeably  encouraged.  In  matter  of  size  we  rank  today  second 
only  to  the  Chicago  Peace  Society  among  the  branches  of  the 
American  Peace  Society.  Among  our  typical  activities  may  be 
mentioned  many  addresses  in  various  places  of  the  State,  fre- 
quent circularizing  of  the  public  schools,  the  encouragement  of 
school  debates,  the  popularisation  of  Peace  Sunday  in  December 
and  of  Peace  Day  upon  the  eighteenth  of  May,  circularizing  the 
press,  various  clubs,  ministers,  bankers,  and  other  public  persons, 
correspondence  with  congressmen  and  senators,  and  various  other 
forms  of  cooperation  with  those  agencies  which  make  for  a  closer 
friendship  and  a  better  mutual  understanding  between  the  nations. 

Sir  Edward  Grey,  England's  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
recently  remarked  about  Mr.  Angell's  book:  "True  as  the  state- 
ment in  that  book  may  be,  it  does  not  become  an  operative  motive 
in  the  minds  and  conduct  of  nations  until  they  have  become  con- 
vinced of  its  truth  and  it  has  become  a  commonplace  to  them." 
The  Connecticut  Peace  Society  would  do  its  little  share  in  making 
the  fundamental  and  enduring  principles  of  peace  a  commonplace 
in  the  minds  and  wills  of  the  American  people. 

Chairman  Burton:  I  now  take  pleasure  in  introducing  to  you 
Mr.  M.  Hunda,  of  the  Japan  Peace  Society  of  New  York.  Every 
time  a  war  scare  is  threatened,  we  hear  something  about  Japan, 
so  you  will  no  doubt  be  interested  in  hearing  from  him. 


l88  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

THE  JAPAN  PEACE  SOCIETY 

M.    HUNDA 

The  Japan  Society  of  New  York  was  organized  some  four 
years  ago  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  friendly  relations  between 
the  United  States  and  Japan,  as  also  for  the  diffusing  of  a 
more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  people  of  Japan — their  aims, 
ideals,  arts,  sciences,  industries  and  economic  conditions,  among 
the  American  people.  What  the  Society  lacks  in  the  way  of  vener- 
able history  is  more  than  made  up  by  the  notable  fact  that  it 
came  into  existence  at  the  very  psychological  time  when  a  need  for 
a  better  understanding  of  each  other  began  to  be  comprehended 
by  the  two  neighbors  who  dwelt  on  the  opposite  shores  of  the  Paci- 
fic Ocean.  As  it  is  essentially  an  American  institution,  the  Japan- 
ese ambassador  being  its  honorary  president,  it  becomes  a  privilege 
for  a  Japanese  member  to  have  this  opportunity  of  reporting  to 
the  National  Peace  Congress  of  the  United  States  as  to  what  the 
Japan  Society  of  New  York  has  been  doing  as  a  factor  in  the  great 
cause  of  international  amity  and  good  will.  The  American 
ambassador  to  Japan,  the  Japanese  ambassador  to  the  United 
States,  and  a  number  of  distinguished  visitors  from  Japan  have 
been  entertained  by  the  Society  at  dinner  or  luncheon,  each  occa- 
sion of  this  kind  proving  a  decided  contribution  to  the  conforma- 
tion of  the  traditional  friendship  between  the  two  nations  repre- 
sented by  our  Society.  Lectures,  illustrated  or  otherwise,  have 
also  been  given  that  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  people  of  Japan 
may  be  diffused;  and  at  this  moment  a  loan  exhibition  of  rare  color 
prints  is  being  held  and  is  attracting  crowds  of  admiring  spectators 
to  its  rooms  in  a  central  location  of  the  Metropolis. 

If  one  has  a  wish  to  learn,  he  can  derive  many  valuable  lessons  in 
universal  peace  even  from  Japanese  pictures.  A  few  of  the  color 
prints  now  on  view  in  New  York  depict  dramatic  characters  in 
long  divided  skirt  or  trousers,  and  this  at  once  takes  us  back  to  the 
time  of  Japan's  fuedal  regime,  which  secured  two  centuries  and  a 
half  of  profound  peace  to  the  land  after  four  centuries  of  constant 
warfare.  At  the  Overlord's  Court,  the  daimyos  were  compelled 
to  wear  those  long  trousers,  part  of  which  must  be  kept  between 
the  toes  in  order  to  throw  forward  three  or  four  feet  of  the  super- 


HUNDA  189 

flous  ends  of  the  dress  that  the  wearer  might  walk  in  a  dignified 
manner.  This  was,  of  course,  to  prevent  the  rulers  of  different 
feudatories  from  attacking  each  other.  Thus,  we  of  the  twentieth 
century  should  be  so  enshrouded-in  and  tied  by  our  garments  of 
international  courtesy  and  moraUty,  that  a  physical  violence  by 
one  nation  upon  another  would  be  both  unthinkable  and  impossible. 

Another  feudal  device  for  the  securing  of  peace  was  to  arrange 
the  territories  of  three  hundred  lords  in  such  a  way  as  to  place  a 
buffer  state  between  two  rivals,  and  something  similar  to  this 
is  aimed  at  by  the  modern  network  of  international  alliances 
and  conventions.  Still  another  method  of  securing  peace  in  feudal 
Japan  was  to  obUge  the  territorial  lords  to  offer  expensive  gifts 
to  temples  or  to  undertake  costly  public  works,  so  that  they  might 
have  no  money  left  for  rebelling  against  the  central  authorities  or 
for  attacking  their  neighbors.  The  heavy  burden  of  war  and  arma- 
ments has  convinced  Japan,  at  least,  of  the  undesirabilityof  fighting. 

China  has  accomphshed  a  peaceful  conquest  of  the  entire  civi- 
lized world  with  her  tea-drinking  institution,  and  Japan  first 
took  it  up  as  an  aid  to  religious  contemplation  and  then,  toward 
the  end  of  her  dark  ages,  as  an  ethico-esthetic  culture  to  discipline 
men-at-arms  in  self  control  and  politeness.  A  great  military 
leader,  called  the  Napoleon  of  Japan,  initiated  the  fashion  among 
his  followers  and  vassals  of  sitting  over  a  cup  of  ceremonial  tea  in 
a  special  small  room,  before  entering  which,  both  high  and  low 
removed  their  swords.  In  the  midst  of  feudalism  was  thus  created 
a  republic  of  tea-ism,  where  dignified  equipoise  and  art  apprecia- 
tion reigned  supreme.  The  philosophic  tea-master  of  this  esthetic 
statesman  once  tested  his  great  pupil's  attainment  of  virtue  by 
purposely  upsetting  the  hot  water  kettle  and  raising  a  storm  of 
ashes  and  steam  in  a  four-and-a-half-mats  room.  Should  any 
ripple  show  itself  on  the  calm  sea  of  one's  composure,  he  was  not 
considered  as  being  a  member  of  the  cult  of  the  soothing  beverage. 
A  constant  effort  at  genuine  enjoyment  of  what  is  beautiful  and 
good  in  other  peoples  and  races  is  sure  to  lead  us  up  to  that  height 
of  human  nobility  where  a  sordid  strife  over  worldly  possessions 
is  not  only  distasteful  but  positively  inconceivable. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  cause  of  keen  delight  to  all  lovers  of  peace  that 
the  Japan  Society  of  New  York,  and  an  ever  increasing  number 


1 90 


THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 


of  clubs  and  schools  are  studying  Japan  and  her  conditions  with 
sympathetic  interest.  If,  as  a  result  of  such  investigations,  the 
Japanese  can  hear  jfair  criticism  of  themselves  from  their  American 
friends,  then  not  only  Japan  but  the  whole  world  will  gain  in  more 
ways  than  one,  for  all  the  children  of  men  can  learn  from  one 
another  to  the  everlasting  good  of  all. 

Chairman  Burton:  We  all  recognize  the  potent  service  woman 
has  performed  for  the  cause  of  peace.  I  now  introduce  to  you 
Mrs.  Belva  A.  Lockwood  who  has  labored  for  a  long  while  in  the 
cause  of  peace. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  ACTIVITIES,  THE  OBJECT  AND  AIMS 
OF  THE  NATIONAL  ARBITRATION  SOCIETY 

BELVA   A.    LOCKWOOD,    LL.D. 

First:  The  total  abolition  of  war,  and  the  settlement  of  all 
dijQ&culties  that  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  or  compromised,  by 
juridical    methods. 

Second:  The  gradual  and  simultaneous  limitation  of  armaments 
by  civilized  powers;  the  reduction  of  the  army  and  the  navy; 
and  the  cessation  of  the  building  of  enormous  battleships,  dread- 
noughts. 

Third:  The  settlement  of  all  difficulties  between  nations  that 
cannot  be  arbitrated  by  juridical  methods,  including  national 
honor,  a  la  Taft. 

Fourth:  The  education  of  the  people  and  especially  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  public  schools,  by  educating  the  teachers,  distributing 
peace  literature,  and  inaugurating  school  peace  leagues,  after  the 
methods  recently  introduced  by  Mrs.  Fanny  Fern  Andrews,  and 
her  co-workers. 

Fifth:  No  attempt  at  hostilities  until  every  effort  of  amicable 
adjustment  has  failed,  and  then  at  least  one  month's  delay. 

METHODS 

Our  methods  have  been  in  drafting  bills  and  resolutions  and 
getting  them  introduced  into  Congress;  referred  to  a  Committee 


LOCKWOOD  191 

and  then  a  sub-committee  if  practical;  converting  the  committee; 
writing  articles  for  the  public  press;  discussing  the  question  in 
public  places;  making  public  speeches  before  churches,  schools, 
and  clubs,  and  having  handy  typed  copies  of  speeches  for  the 
reporters;  sending  peace  literature  to  the  Committees  of  Congress 
on  War,  Navy,  Appropriations,  and  Foreign  Relations;  and  asking 
the  President  to  decry  war  in  his  message  to  Congress,  and  recom- 
mend the  reduction  of  armaments;  and  in  trying  to  enlist  our 
friends  in  the  movement;  getting  our  most  intelligent  members 
to  attend  peace  congresses  both  at  home  and  abroad,  humanitarian 
and  prison  congresses,  press  associations.  Women's  Christian 
Temperance  Union  Conventions,  great  gatherings  of  the  Epworth 
League,  national  councils  of  women  and  large  church  organiza- 
tions; and  persuading  them  to  embody  in  their  resolutions  a  reso- 
lution on  peace  and  arbitration,  and  commit  their  organizations 
to  the  sentiment;  and  not  to  forget  it  when  we  are  called  upon  for 
a  toast,  for,  like  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Church,  we  are 
bound  to  speak  the  principles  we  cherish  on  any  and  all  occasions. 

ABOLISHING   THE   ARMY   AND   NAVY 

It  was  my  privilege  to  perform  this  duty  not  long  since 
while  standing  before  an  audience  in  a  crowded  Opera  House, 
between  two  one-legged  brigadier  generals  of  the  United  States, 
and  preaching  peace;  and  at  another  time  not  long  ago,  while 
sitting  beside  the  governor  of  Bermuda  at  the  head  of  five-hundred 
distinguished  dinner  guests,  including  sixty-five  members  of  the 
Press  Association,  and  a  dozen  ofiicers  of  the  English  army,  who 
were  quite  thrown  into  consternation  by  my  suggestions,  that  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  combined  could  keep  the  peace 
of  the  world,  and  abolish  the  army  and  navy,  and  asked  what  I 
would  do  with  the  army  and  navy  officers,  with  army  and  navy 
abolished.  Ah!  Mr.  President,  my  dear  brother  and  sisters, 
"there's  the  rub !"  " That  is  what  makes  calamity  of  so  long  life." 
It  is  the  great  question.  What  is  to  become  of  the  graduates  of 
West  Point  and  Annapolis? — the  young  men  who  are  straining 
every  nerve  to  distinguish  themselves  with  their  military  prowess. 


192  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

So  long  as  the  government  educates  men  for  the  army  and  navy, 
it  must  supply  something  for  them  to  do.  So  long  as  it  teaches 
them  to  shoot  to  kill,  it  will  find  some  enemy  to  attack. 

We  have  some  very  nice  people  who  tell  us  that  the  total  aboli- 
tion of  war  is  only  the  dream  of  fanatics.  I  am  proud  to  be  one 
of  those  fanatics.  I  beheve  that  the  principle  of  love,  of  kindness, 
of  humanity,  of  human  brotherhood  is  stronger  in  the  hearts  of 
people  of  civiHzed  countries,  than  the  cat  nature — the  love  of 
slaughter,  and  the  desire  to  kill;  and  that  children  are  especially 
susceptible  to  such  instruction;  and  young  men  and  women  to 
such  examples.  To  educate  the  public.  Miss  Lucy  S.  Patrick 
secured  a  peace  symposium  in  the  Sentinel  of  January  29,  191 1, 
and  distributed  it  freely. 

We  do  not  expect  to  abolish  at  once  the  habit  of  centuries,  but 
nations  can  certainly  agree  upon  a  gradual  reduction  of  armaments, 
instead  of  keeping  up  this  monstrous  increase  which  must  neces- 
sarily lead  in  the  near  future  to  national  bankruptcy. 

NEEDS   NO   ARGUMENT 

That  international  difficulties  can  be  settled  juridically  needs 
no  argument.  Our  own  country  has  already  settled  either  by 
arbitration  or  The  Hague  Court,  almost  every  class  of  case  that 
usually  leads  to  war.  Besides  war  settles  nothing.  It  kills  inno- 
cent men  for  the  guilty,  engenders  hatred  that  it  takes  centuries 
to  eradicate,  and  as  the  war  is  ended,  the  difficulty  is  settled  by  a 
Commission  composed  of  persons  from  both  contending  parties, 
and  perhaps  a  neutral.  The  expense  of  arbitration,  although  it 
may  be  great,  is  only  about  one-tenth  of  the  cost  of  a  war. 

DISTRIBUTES   LITERATURE 

For  the  last  eighteen  years  our  Society  has  distributed  gratui- 
tously peace  literature,  consisting  of  books,  pamphlets,  magazines, 
leaflets  and  papers,  to  all  persons  who  have  called  for  them  in  our 
vicinage,  or  who  have  written  for  them  from  other  States  or  from 
abroad,  and  we  have  kept  in  touch  with  all  peace  societies  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe. 


LOCKWOOD  193 


THE   CLERGY 


For  the  last  eight  or  ten  years  it  has  been  our  custom  to  write 
two  or  three  weeks  before  Christmas  to  every  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  priest,  or  rabbi  in  and  around  Washington,  asking  them 
to  preach  a  peace  sermon  during  the  holidays.  There  are  about 
three  hundred  of  them.  We  now  have  this  custom  so  well  estab- 
lished that  a  notice  in  the  daily  papers  before  that  time  seems  to 
answer  the  purpose. 

THE   TEACHERS 

Ever  since  the  establishment  of  The  Hague  Court,  February 
1900,  and  its  proclamation,  November  i,  1901,  we  have  been 
accustomed  to  ask  the  trustees  of  the  public  schools  of  Washington, 
for  leave  to  send  to  our  seventeen  hundred  teachers,  peace  litera- 
ture, and  to  request  them  to  observe  the  eighteenth  of  May,  the 
day  on  which  its  accomplishment  was  finally  agreed  upon,  as  a 
Peace  Day,  and  it  has  been  done,  until  the  day  has  been  well  es- 
tablished in  our  public  schools. 

Last  year  Miss  Lucy  S.  Patrick,  one  of  our  helpers,  got  all  of 
the  teachers  of  our  public  schools  called  together  in  the  Central 
High  School,  through  the  courtesy  of  Superintendent  Stuart, 
and  Hon.  Richard  Bartholdt  of  Missouri  made  them  a  most  ad- 
mirable peace  address,  which  was  seconded  by  the  superintendent, 
and  the  next  day  repeated  in  the  Armstrong  High  School  to  the 
seven  hundred  colored  teachers,  no  audience  room  being  spacious 
enough  to  accommodate  them  all  at  once. 

This  year  Mrs.  Fanny  Fern  Andrews  has  sent  some  very  nicely 
arranged  literature  for  peace  day  in  the  schools,  which  we  have 
already  distributed,  not  only  to  our  own  schools,  but  have  sent 
to  several  cities  outside,  notably  Lockport,  Buffalo,  Tonawanda, 
etc.,  and  your  speaker  had  the  privilege  of  addressing  at  the 
National  Hotel  in  Washington,  April  19,  last,  two  hundred  of  their 
teachers  on  this  point. 

We  do  not  study  and  carry  out  fixed  plans  for  our  own  amuse- 
ment and  entertainment,  as  we  all  have  our  regular  business,  and 
no  fund  for  peacemakers,  but  do  whatever  we  see  to  do  in  season 
and  out  of  season,  with  a  will. 


0^(i) 


194  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

THE   association's   BEST   WORK 

We  believe  just  now  that  our  best  work  was  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions and  peace  literature  sent  to  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  by  us,  February  22,  1910,  which  culminated,  as  we 
believe,  in  a  joint  resolution  that  was  not  only  admirably  but 
favorably  recommended  to  the  House  by  that  body;  the  report 
headed  "For  Universal  Peace,"  but  which  passed  Congress  and 
was  approved  June  25,  1910,  known  as  Public  Resolution  No. 
47,— H.  J.  R.  223. 

'^  Joint  Resolution,  To  Authorize  the  Appointment  of  a  Commission 
in  relation  to  universal  peace" 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  Assembled: 

"That  a  commission  of  five  members  be  appointed  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  to  consider  the  expediency  of  utilizing 
existing  international  agencies  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  arma- 
ments of  the  nations  of  the  world  by  international  agreement, 
and  by  constituting  the  combined  navies  of  the  world  an  inter- 
national force  for  the  preservation  of  universal  peace,  and  to  con- 
sider and  report  upon  any  other  means  to  diminish  the  expendi- 
tures of  government  for  military  purposes,  and  to  lessen  the  prob- 
abilities of  war;  Provided,  that  the  total  expense  authorized  by 
this  joint  resolution  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  of  ten  thousand 
dollars  and  that  the  said  Commission  shall  be  required  to  make 
final  report  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this 
resolution." 

COMMISSION   not   APPOINTED 

We  are  very  proud  of  the  resolution  but  chagrined  by  the  fact 
that  the  President  has  not  yet  appointed  the  commission,  although 
the  time  is  limited  to  two  years  from  its  passage,  and  Italy,  Aus- 
tria, France,  England,  Holland,  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Norway 
have  signified  their  willingness  to  appoint  similar  commissions, 
and  meet  us  on  common  ground.  The  internecine  war  with  Mex- 
ico seems  to  have  unsettled  the  calm  repose  of  the  executive  and 


LOVE  195 

created  a  distrust  in  his  mind  of  international  agreements,  but  we 
still  hope. 

Chairman  Burton:  I  take  pleasure  in  introducing  to  you 
Mr.  Alfred  H.  Love,  an  old  patriot  in  the  cause  of  peace.  He  has 
responded  to  the  request  that  he  give  us  an  idea  of  the  aims  and 
activities  of  his  organization,  the  Universal  Peace  Union  of  Phil- 
adelphia. 

HOW  TO  AVOID  AND  PREVENT  WAR  AND  HOW 
TO  SECURE  AND   MAINTAIN  PEACE 

ALFRED   H.    LOVE 

Responding  to  the  request  that  I  give  the  aims  and  activities 
of  our  organization,  I  shall  have  to  condense  the  nearly  half  cen- 
tury work  and  refer  briefly  to  the  following : 

We  were  brought  to  the  front  by  the  Civil  War.  Men  of  con- 
firmed principles  had  been  drafted,  who  from  conscientious  con- 
victions could  not  enter  the  army  or  comply  with  the  provisions 
of  the  conscription  act.  We  felt,  however,  there  were  obUgations 
to  remove  the  causes  and  abohsh  the  customs  of  war,  improve 
the  conditions  and  promulgate  the  principles  of  peace. 

It  was  in  1865  that  meetings  were  held  in  Boston  and  elsewhere, 
aided  by  such  persons,  among  many  others,  as  Joshua  P.  Blan- 
chard,  Lucretia  Mott,  George  Thompson  of  England,  Judge  Car- 
ter, Amasa  Walker,  Julia  Ward  Howe,  Charles  Perry,  WilUam 
Lloyd  Garrison,  Adin  Ballou,  Thomas  Garrett,  Frederic  Passy 
of  France,  Henry  C.  Wright,  E.  H.  Heywood,  the  Whipples  of 
Connecticut,  James  M.  Peebles,  George  W.  Taylor,  Elizabeth 
B.  Chace,  Levi  Joslin  and  Charles  Sumner;  all  but  two  of  whom 
have  passed  on  to  merited  rewards. 

The  Universal  Peace  Union  was  organized  in  1866  and  incor- 
porated in  1888.  The  first  call  which  showed  the  aims  of  the 
organization   was : 

''The  experiment  of  6000  years  to  establish  peace  by  deadly 
force  has  failed,  and  the  record  is  written  in  blood!     Millions  of 


196  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Kves  have  been  sacrificed  and  treasures  beyond  computation  have 
been  wasted.  Believing  that  legalized  man  killing  is  inexpedient, 
inhuman,  unchristian  and  barbarous,  is  it  not  time  to  try  some 
better  plan?  We  are  convinced  that  the  causes  of  war,  as  well 
as  war  itself,  must  surrender  to  the  principles  of  the  inviolability 
of  human  life,  absolute  justice,  equal  rights,  human  brotherhood 
and  world-wide  philanthropy." 

This  involved  persistent  daily  work  from  that  early  date  to  the 
present,  so  that  the  "activities"  of  the  Universal  Peace  Union 
would  cover  volumes.     In  all  modesty,  I  select  the  following. 

Soon  after  the  American  Rebellion,  we  petitioned  for  a  peace- 
able Solution  of  the  Mason  and  Slidell  case  with  Great  Britain, 
and  succeeded. 

Then  came  the  Alabama  question.  We  applied  for  consulta- 
tion and  gained  the  treaty  of  Washington.  Through  the  Joint 
High  Commission  we  urged  an  international  system  and  tribunal 
of  arbitration,  and  a  reduction  of  the  army  to  20,000  men;  which 
was  successful. 

We  were  instrumental  in  averting  a  repetition  of  the  Alabama 
troubles,  by  preventing  filibustering  vessels  of  war  leaving  our 
ports  for  Cuba  against  Spain  (with  whom  our  government  was  on 
friendly  terms)  and  by  visiting  Madrid  and  by  appealing  to  the 
insurgents  of  Cuba. 

We  recommended  Grant's  "Peace  Policy"  with  the  Indians  and 
succeeded  in  preventing  a  war  between  several  tribes,  and  aided 
in  the  establishment  of  Indian  schools. 

We  started  over  forty  branch  peace  societies  in  the  United  States 
and  as  many  more  in  Europe  and  elsewhere,  and  aided  in  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Peace  Bureau  at  Berne  and  the  Berlin  Council. 

In  1874  we  presented  to  Congress  the  following,  which  was 
adopted: 

"That  the  President  is  hereby  authorized  and  requested  to  ne- 
gotiate with  all  civilized  powers,  who  may  be  willing  to  enter  into 
such  negotiations,  for  the  establishment  of  an  international  sys- 
tem, whereby  matters  in  dispute  between  governments  agreeing 
thereto  may  be  adjusted  by  arbitration  and,  if  possible,  without 
recourse  to  war." 


LOVE  197 

During  the  centennial  year  of  American  Independence  we  held, 
for  five  days,  a  large  peace  convention  in  Carpenters'  Hall,  where 
the  first  Continental  Congress  had  assembled  one  hundred  years 
before  and  had  declared  war  against  Great  Britain.  We  sent 
forth  a  declaration  of  peace  to  the  world. 

Several  swords  were  presented  by  army  officers  who  had  carried 
them  in  battles.     They  were  turned  into  a  plow  and  pruning    r>  --,  ^ 
hooks  and  sent  to  the  Paris  Exposition  of  1878  and  afterwards 
presented  to  the  city  of  Geneva,  and  the  plow  now  rests  on  a  dais 
in  the  immortal  hall  where  the  Alabama  question  was  settled. 

Interviews  have  been  had  with  all  our  Presidents  and  all  the 
secretaries  of  state  have  aided  us.  Secretary  Evarts  especially 
did  so  in  our  efforts  to  adjust  the  complications  between  Peru, 
Bolivia  and  ChiU. 

We  gave  ex-President  Grant  the  memorable  reception  in  1879 
in  Philadelphia,  when  he  pronounced  the  great  truths  of  peace, 
his  hatred  of  war  and  his  recommendations  for  arbitration. 

Three  times  we  sent  Conrad  F.  StoUmeyer  as  our  peace  envoy 
to  Europe  with  credentials  of  Secretary  Blaine. 

In  1886,  when  a  war  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States  was 
imminent,  in  the  Cutting  case,  President  Diaz  acted  upon  our  sug- 
gestion, accepting  indemnity  for  reparation  of  losses,  and  there 
was  no  war. 

We  have  been  represented  in  all  the  peace  congresses  here  and 
abroad. 

The  peace  flag  has  had  official  recognition,  being  the  national 
colors  of  every  nation  bordered  with  white,  and  at  the  Rome  Peace 
Congress  it  was  exhibited  by  Rowland  B.  Howard,  and  by  Mrs. 
Ormsby  at  the  time  of  the  New  Orleans  massacre  of  Italians,  and 
it  had  much  to  do  with  preventing  a  war. 

For  the  Armenians,  the  Jews,  the  Chinese,  the  oppressed  every- 
where, we  have  interceded  and  brought  about  more  peaceful  con- 
ditions. 

In  1 89 1  we  built  the  first  Peace  Temple,  on  our  own  grounds  of     o 
over  ten  acres,  at  Mystic,  Connecticut. 

From  Toronto  to  New  Orleans,  from  St.  Louis  to  Chicago  and 
to  Atlanta  and  nearly  all  the  principal  cities  our  anniversaries 
have  been  held  and  generally  with  exhibits  of  peace  propaganda. 


198  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

We  took  the  liveliest  interest  in  the  Alsace  and  Lorraine  ques- 
tion and  in  the  Japanese  and  Russian  war,  suggesting  at  Ports- 
mouth and  St.  Petersburg  terms  that  were  evenutally  accepted 
to  terminate  the  war. 

For  the  Suez  Canal  being  neutral  we  conferred  with  Ferdinand 
Lesseps  and  with  success. 

We  gained  from  Spain  five  concessions  to  prevent  the  recent 
war  and  would  have  secured  the  independence  of  Cuba,  as  Min- 
ister Woodford  and  Senator  Edmonds  assured  us,  had  not  Con- 
gress declared  war. 

Since  then  we  have  been  even  more  active  in  aiding  the  adjust- 
ment of  political,  social,  industrial  strikes  and  war-like  troubles. 
At  present  we  are  laboring  with  President  Diaz  and  the  insurgents 
for  concessions  that  will  bring  about  peace.  But  these  recent 
activities  are  known  through  the  Peacemaker  and  publications 
we  have  issued  all  these  years. 

The  gratifying  cooperation  of  our  present  administration  and 
our  Congressmen  and  others  who  are  on  our  list  of  members  and 
officers  greatly  encourages  our  faith  and  hope. 

The  independence  of  man  is  a  birthright.  The  Creator  never 
would  have  inspired  His  created  with  the  ideals  of  peace  without 
giving  the  power  to  reaHze  the  blessing.  What  man  creates  man 
can  abolish.     All  possibilities  are  in  his  hands. 

To  avoid  war  is  to  give  no  occasion  for  war.  If  a  "soft  answer 
turneth  away  wrath,"  the  word  or  act  that  does  not  wound  or 
stir  up  strife  will  require  no  ''soft  answer."  If  we  are  just,  honest 
and  charitable  to  all,  we  will  provoke  no  war,  and  by  being  deter- 
mined, under  all  circumstances  to  keep  out  of  it,  it  can  be  avoided. 

How  to  prevent  war!  This  comes  as  a  natural  sequence  to 
avoiding  war.  We  have  to  look  at  the  possibilities  of  the  side 
not  converted  to  our  standpoint  rising  in  rebellion.  What  then? 
If  a  fire  is  burning,  do  not  add  fuel  to  it;  quench  it  by  antidote  of 
water  or  chemicals.  War  being  wrong,  a  diseased,  ignorant  and 
perverted  condition,  no  human  authority  can  force  mankind  to 
commit  a  wrong;  hence,  educate  public  opinion. 

We  can  prevent  war  by  the  substitution  of  friendly  and  peace- 
able intervention,  by  ''pouring  oil  upon  troubled  waters,"  by  ar- 


LOVE  199 

bitration  and  conciliation,  by  a  patient  investigation  of  the  causes 
of  a  conflict  before  the  clash  of  arms,  and  by  urging  concessions. 

It  can  be  prevented  by  remaining  neutral  and  refusing  to  loan 
money  or  giving  aid  to  either  belligerent. 

It  can  be  done  by  not  relegating  to  any  man  or  any  set  of  men 
the  power  to  declare  war,  amending  the  Constitution  by  taking 
out  the  war  clauses  and  substituting  "Congress  shall  have  power 
to  declare  arbitration." 

If  appropriations  will  go  on  for  the  army  and  battle  ships,  make 
them  useless,  except,  perhaps,  as  a  police  force  to  arrest  and  hand 
over  to  the  courts. 

To  secure  peace,  recognize  peace  as  a  recompense  for  righteous- 
ness, the  result  of  pacific  conditions — Peace  within  ourselves, 
self-cotrol,  love,  justice,  equal  rights,  charity,  fraternity,  humanity, 
a  world-wide  philanthropy  and  the  brotherhood  of  man,  remem- 
bering that  peace  must  be  deserved  to  be  secured. 

Live  the  conditions  of  peace;  perfect  the  network  and  peace 
agencies  of  our  civilization.  Friendship  is  cheaper  than  cannon 
and  good-will  a  better  insurance  policy  than  all  the  dreadnoughts 
and  fortifications  in  the  world;  put  more  faith  in  The  Hague  Peace 
Tribunal  and  urge  an  international  permanent  court  of  justice 
and  arbitration  and,  not  waiting  for  the  Third  Conference  at  The 
Hague,  look  to  the  children  as  the  new  administration  and  intro- 
duce into  the  curriculum  of  the  schools  the  study  of  the  principles 
of  peace  and  the  drilUng  of  the  scholars  in  arbitrating  disputes 
among  themselves,  thus  educating  them  to  be  competent  as  arbi- 
trators for  the  coming  demand. 

To  maintain  peace,  scrupulously  observe  treaties  by  more  of 
good  faith,  more  sincerity  in  the  manifestoes  of  a  Czar  and  The 
Hague  Court.  It  is  an  easy  thing  to  sign  a  parchment  peace  treaty, 
but  quite  another  to  observe  its  requirements.  There  was  to 
be  no  bombardment  of  unfortified  towns  or  cities.  This,  if  kept 
in  good  faith,  would  dismantle  forts  and  turn  them  into  repair 
shops,  hospitals  and  asylums  and  prevent  any  need  to  fortify, 
even  the  Panama  Canal.  Broken  treaties  are  peace-breakers 
and  preparations  for  war  is  a  menace  and  an  incubator  of  war. 

If  there  must  be  naval  voyages  let  them  be  of  merchantmen, 


200  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

showing  our  constructive  ability  and  tendering  peaceable,  unarmed 
courtesies  by  friendly  visitation. 

More  of  reciprocity  and  less  of  selfishness;  more  of  freedom  of 
tYade, — not  necessarily  free  trade;  more  of  cooperation  and  less 
of  competition;  more  of  common  welfare  and  less  of  egotism; 
for  these  comprehend  "Love  one  another,"  "Do  unto  others  as 
you  would  have  others  do  unto  you." 

Standing  in  the  midst  of  this  gathering  of  wealth  and  wisdom, 
of  highest  aspirations  and  divine  inspirations,  we  can  see  through 
the  mistakes  that  have  been  made  and  that  we  have  all  the  peace 
we  deserve,  but  not  all  the  peace  it  is  possible  to  obtain.  We 
rejoice  in  the  courageous  utterances  of  President  Taft  as  to  honor 
and  arbitration,  clinched  by  the  response  of  Sir  Edward  Gray. 
No  wonder  the  die  is  cast  for  an  unlimited  arbitration  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  no  doubt  can  be 
entertained  that  "the  kindreddrops  will  mingle  into  one"  when  our 
eminent  statesman  Secretary  of  State  Knox  and  Ambassador  Bryce 
submit  a  treaty  that  will  be  accepted  and  be  an  example  for  other 
nations  to  "go  and  do  likewise." 

"Oh,  make  Thou  us,  through  centuries  long. 
In  peace  secure,  in  justice  strong; 
Around  our  gift  of  freedom  draw 
The  safeguards  of  Thy  righteous  law. 
And  cast  in  some  diviner  mould. 
Let  the  new  cycle  shame  the  old!" 

— Whittier. 

Chairman  Burton:  Mr.  Robert  Stein  is  the  next  speaker  on 
the  program.     I  take  great  pleasure  in  introducing  him. 

CAN  A  NATION  BE  A  GENTLEMAN? 

ROBERT   STEIN 

Mr.  Carnegie  and  Colonel  Roosevelt  disagree  on  a  number  of 
points,  but  they  agree  on  one  point:  that  assured  peace  is  not  pos- 
sible without  an  international  police,  consisting  of  the  combined 
armies  and  navies  of  the  strongest,  most  enlightened  and  humane 


STEIN  20I 

nations,  best  prepared  by  identity  of  ideals  to  trust  each  other, 
and  least  likely  to  abuse  the  police  power. 

If  Britain,  France,  Germany,  and  the  United  States  would 
enter  into  an  agreement  for  mutual  benefit,  the  international  police 
would  exist  ipso  facto. 

Britain,  France  and  Germany  cannot  come  to  an  agreement 
without  mutual  concessions. 

The  best  way  to  advocate  the  policy  of  mutual  concessions  is 
by  example. 

That  is  my  story  in  a  nutshell,  and  I  might  just  as  well  sit 
down  and  let  these  maps  speak  for  themselves.  However,  I 
assume  that  you  would  like  to  hear  a  few  details. 

The  wisest  man  in  England,  Sir  Harry  H.  Johnston,  in  an 
article  entitled  "German  Views  of  an  Anglo-German  Under- 
standing," in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  December,  1910,  shows 
that  an  Anglo- German  agreement  on  the  basis  of  mutual  conces- 
sions is  practicable  and  imminent.  A  straw  thrown  in  the  bal- 
ance may  tip  it  in  the  right  direction. 

The  United  States  can  throw  that  straw.  Our  nation  is  uni- 
versally regarded  as  the  natural  leader  in  the  peace  movement. 
If  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  accept  that  leadership,  we  can  not  shirk 
the  duty  of  setting  the  example  in  that  policy  of  mutual  conces- 
sions which  is  the  only  avenue  to  permanent  peace.  Now  we 
have  at  this  moment  a  unique,  incomparable,  God-sent  oppor- 
tunity to  show  to  other  nations  how  a  concession  is  made.  To 
our  neighbor,  Canada,  whose  friendship  we  are  just  now  so  anxious 
to  cultivate,  we  can  make  a  concession  which  may  just  suffice, 
through  the  force  of  example,  to  supply  the  slight  additional 
impulse  needed  to  decide  Britain  and  Germany  to  make  the  two 
vital  mutual  concessions  pointed  out  by  the  wisest  man  in  England. 
An  Anglo- German  agreement  would  inevitably  be  followed  by  a 
Franco- German  agreement,  also  on  the  basis  of  mutual  conces- 
sions, and  then  the  international  police  would  be  complete,  for  every- 
body knows  that  the  United  States  would  instantly  join  it.  Our 
duty  to  set  this  example  is  all  the  more  manifest  and  imperative 
because  the  proposed  concession  to  Canada  involves  no  sacrifice; 
it  is  simply  a  question  of  putting  an  end  to  an  absurdity. 


202 


THIRD   AAIERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 


STEIN 


203 


204  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

You  have  before  you  the  map  of  Alaska.  You  see  that  Alaska 
consists  of  two  parts:  the  main  body  and  the  Panhandle,  this 
strip  of  coast  running  southeastward  to  the  parallel  of  54°  40' 
a  mere  ribbon,  536  miles  long,  8  to  35  miles  wide,  shutting  off  the 
northern  half  of  British  Columbia  and  the  entire  Yukon  Territory 
from  free  access  to  the  Pacific.  How  large,  do  you  think,  is  this 
Canadian  territory  thus  deprived  of  its  natural  seaboard?  It 
measures  some  600,000  square  miles,  three  times  as  much  as  Ger- 
many, more  than  ten  times  as  much  as  England  and  Wales  together. 
It  has  the  same  climate  as  Europe  in  the  same  latitude.  In 
Europe,  north  of  the  parallel  54°  40',  you  find  a  slice  of  Ireland, 
a  slice  of  England,  all  Scotland,  all  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway, 
all  Finland,  a  slice  of  Germany;  and  the  richest  part  of  Russia; 
great  cities  like  St.  Petersburg,  with  1,700,000  inhabitants;  Glas- 
gow, with  900,000;  Copenhagen,  with  500,000.  An  equal  area 
in  Europe  in  the  same  latitude  contains  25,000,000  inhabitants. 

This  Canadian  country  has  immense  resources  in  timber,  agri- 
cultural and  mineral  lands.  The  wealth  of  all  countries  is  mainly 
concentrated  in  their  ports — Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia, 
Baltimore — but  it  is  derived  from  the  commerce  of  the  country 
behind  them.  The  wealth  of  this  Canadian  country  will  neces- 
sarily be  concentrated  in  its  ports — on  American  territory.  This 
entire  slope  is  drenched  with  rain  and  possesses  tremendous  water 
power.  The  factories  to  be  driven  by  that  power  will  necessarily 
be  on  tide  water — in  American  territory;  but  the  reservoirs  fur- 
nishing that  power  will  be  on  Canadian  ground.  The  25,000,000 
Canadians  who  will  eventually  live  behind  this  Panhandle  will 
constantly  be  forced  to  contribute  to  the  enrichment  of  half  a 
dozen  American  cities,  while  these  cities  will  not  contribute  a  cent 
toward  Canadian  taxes.  What  a  permanent  and  evergrowing 
source  of  irritation! 

The  only  gentlemanly  course,  the  only  manly  course  open  to 
us  is  to  say  to  the  Canadians:  "We  are  willing  to  let  you  have  this 
coast  strip;  what  will  you  give  us  for  it?"  And  if  I  had  time  I 
could  show  you  that  in  exchange  for  it  we.  could  very  likely  get 
something  far  more  useful  to  us  than  this  absurd  Panhandle,  while 
the  Panhandle  itself,  in  Canadian  hands,  would  be  more  useful 
to  us  than  it  now  is. 


STEIN  205 

Reverse  the  situation  and  see  how  we  should  like  it.  Imagine 
that  our  northeastern  States  were  cut  off  from  the  Atlantic  by  a 
similar  Panhandle,  a  Canadian  sidewalk  running  from  eastern 
Maine  down  nearly  to  Philadelphia;  that  all  the  great  cities  on 
that  seaboard,  Boston,  Providence,  Newport,  New  York,  Jersey 
City,  were  Canadian  cities,  deriving  their  wealth  from  the  Ameri- 
can country  behind  them,  yet  contributing  not  a  cent  toward 
American  taxes;  that  not  a  pound  of  freight  could  be  sent  from 
Pittsburg  or  Buffalo  to  New  York  or  Boston  for  export,  except  in 
bond!     We  should  long  ago  have  found  the  situation  unendurable. 

We  should  in  that  case  have  been  greatly  vexed  if  the  Canadians 
had  waited  in  stolid  silence  till  the  situation  did  become  unendur- 
able for  us,  till  we  were  forced  to  complain.  Now  you  remember 
what  the  Model  Gentleman  said  nearly  1900  years  ago:  "Do 
unto  others  as  you  would  they  should  do  unto  you."  Shall  we 
wait  till  the  situation  becomes  unendurable  to  the  Canadians? 
Shall  we  force  them  to  complain? 

If  we  make  the  offer  of  exchange  now,  of  our  own  free  choice, 
its  beneficent  effects  will  be  at  a  maximum.  The  heart  of  Canada 
will  be  linked  to  us  as  with  hooks  of  steel;  a  noble,  generous  na- 
tional deed,  more  glorious  than  all  our  victories,  will  be  inscribed 
in  our  annals;  our  example  will  be  most  effective  in  commanding 
the  policy  of  mutual  concessions  to  our  parent  nations.  If  we 
delay  the  concession  till  the  Canadians  complain,  the  memory 
of  the  concession  will  forever  be  soured  by  the  reflection  that  we 
forced  them  to  complain;  the  effect  of  our  example  will  be  almost 
nulhfied. 

Suppose  that  the  owner  of  this  Panhandle  were  an  individual. 
If  he  made  the  offer  of  exchange  of  his  own  free  choice,  we  should 
call  him  a  gentleman;  if  he  waited  till  his  neighbor  complained, 
we  should  call  him  a  boor,  curmudgeon,  plebeian,  philistine,  or 
some  other  cacophonous  name.  The  question  then  arises:  Can 
a  nation  be  a  gentleman? 

In  a  letter  from  the  late  Prof.  Thomas  Davidson  I  found  this 
startHng  sentence:  "Nations  are  never  gentlemen."  You  may 
have  come  across  the  same  statement.  One  writer  even  attempts 
to  prove  that  it  is  a  sociologic  law.     A  nation  can  not  be  a  gentle- 


2o6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

man,  he  says.  An  individual  can  afford  to  be  generous,  to  fore- 
go certain  rights  for  the  benefit  of  others;  a  statesman  cannot 
do  this  because  the  rights  which  he  safeguards  are  not  his  own  but 
those  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

What  shall  we  say  to  this  argument?  First  of  all  it  is  not  abso- 
lutely true  that  nations  are  never  gentlemen.  The  surrender  of 
the  Ionian  Islands  by  Britain  to  Greece  was  a  gentlemanly  act. 
The  United  States,  in  returning  the  Chinese  indemnity,  proved 
itself  a  gentlemanly  nation.  In  this  case  our  statesmen  did  not 
wait  till  the  Chinese  craved  our  leniency;  they  did  not  even  wait 
for  an  expression  of  public  opinion  in  the  United  States.  They 
assumed  that  the  majority  of  our  citizens  were  gentlemen;  that 
the  foremost  right  of  our  citizens,  which  the  statesman  are  called 
upon  to  safeguard,  is  the  right  to  be  gentlemen  not  only  individ- 
ually but  collectively.  The  universal  and  enthusiastic  applause 
with  which  their  act  was  greeted  proved  that  they  were  not  mis- 
taken. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  national  deeds  like  the  two 
just  cited  are  as  rare  as  comets  in  the  starry  heavens.  It  would 
take  a  historian  a  week  to  find  half  a  dozen  national  deeds  that 
could  be  called  gentlemanly. 

The  reason  is  very  simple.  Most  men  are  willing  enough  to  be 
complete  gentlemen  in  their  individual  conduct,  but  when  it  comes 
to  collective  conduct,  they  split;  the  positive  gentleman  breaks 
away  from  the  negative  gentleman.  For  to  be  a  positive  gentle- 
man as  a  member  of  a  political  body  means  to  persuade  others  to 
adopt  a  certain  line  of  action,  and  this  means  nearly  always  a  fight. 
Now  a  gentleman,  by  his  very  essence,  dislikes  a  fight,  because  to 
fight  means  to  do  unto  somebody  something  which  that  somebody 
does  not  like  to  be  done  unto  him.  That  fraction  of  the  nation 
which  is  not  gentlemanly  always  speaks  promptly  and  loud;  the 
gentlemen  mostly  remain  silent.  The  statesman  hears  only  the 
hundred  voices  of  noisy  protest;  he  does  not  hear  the  silent  approval 
of  the  pacific  millions.  That  is  the  reason  why  nations  are  so 
rarely  gentlemen. 

Knowing  the  mosquito  that  inoculates  nations  with  the  malaria 
of  ungentlemanliness,  to  wit,  the  over-pacific  nature  of  the  gentle- 


STEIN  207 

man,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  apply  a  remedy.  If  the  gentle- 
men of  a  nation  dislike  to  fight  and  yet  recognize  that  they  must 
fight  in  order  that  the  nation  may  be  gentlemanly,  the  natural 
thing  to  do  is  to  look  for  some  means  to  reduce  the  fighting  to  a 
minimum.  Organization  is  that  means.  In  union  is  strength.  9 
An  army  opposed  to  a  mob  has  very  little  fighting  to  do. 

Organization,  federation — that  is  the  leading  aim  of  the  Wash-  «='■=' 
ington  Peace  Society.  I  confess  that  in  organizing  the  society 
my  original  object  was  to  gain  its  support  for  the  proposed  conces- 
sion to  Canada.  It  soon  appeared,  however,  that  some  of  the 
most  influential  men  in  Washington,  while  heartily  in  favor  of  that 
concession,  did  not  think  it  wise  to  commit  the  society  to  any 
specific  measures.  The  discussions  at  our  meetings,  however, 
brought  out  an  idea  of  much  wider  scope,  which  will  accomplish 
not  only  this  but  many  other  objects.  It  is  the  same  idea  that  was 
so  vigorously  set  forth  by  Mr.  John  A.  Stewart  in  the  Editorial\ 
Review  for  April;  that  the  foremost  need  of  the  peace  movement  is  V 
the  unification  of  all  the  immense  forces  available  for  peace  work.  | 
Besides  the  peace  societies,  there  are  the  thousands  of  churches, 
the  Epworth  League,  the  Christian  Endeavor  Society,  The  Chau- 
tauqua Societies,  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  the 
Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
all  working  for  peace.  At  present  their  work  is  scattered,  desul- 
tory, like  that  of  a  mob.  Organize  them  into  an  army,  under  a 
general  and  a  general  staff,  and  you  multiply  their  force  tenfold. 
And  when  this  is  done,  the  proposed  concession  to  Canada  will 
come  as  a  matter  of  course.  When  all  the  ladies  and  gentlemen 
of  the  land  are  federated,  it  will  be  easy  to  take  a  straw  vote,  an 
anticipated  referendum,  on  any  question  relating  to  the  gentle- 
manly conduct  of  the  nation.  Then  we  shall  no  longer  have  to  rely 
on  those  inspired  prophets  who  know  precisely  what  the  American 
people  are  willing  or  not  willing  to  do.  At  least  90  per  cent  of  the 
people  whom  I  did  consult — and  I  consulted  perhaps  a  hundred — 
gave  ready  assent  to  the  proposed  concession  to  Canada,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  same  proportion  would  hold  throughout 
the  nation.  In  other  words,  our  nation  is  a  gentleman,  if  we  will 
only  take  the  trouble  to  find  it  out. 


2oS  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

It  was  a  pleasure  to  learn  that  a  committee  for  the  unification 
of  peace  work  is  already  in  existence,  having  been  appointed  by 
the  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  through  the  influence  of  Mr.  Smiley. 
When  finally  President  Taft  and  Mr.  Carnegie,  at  the  very  opening 
of  this  Congress,  came  out  strongly  in  favor  of  federation,  it  could 
no  longer  be  doubted  that  its  success  was  assured.^ 

Three  more  suggestions  and  I  am  done. 

We  call  ourselves  a  Christian  nation.  As  such  we  profess  to 
be  guided  by  the  rule  which,  by  the  express  declaration  of  its 
Founder,  constitutes  the  essence  of  Christianity:  "Do  unto  others 
as  you  wish  that  they  should  do  unto  you."  Suppose  once  more 
that  a  Canadian  Panhandle  did  shut  off  our  northeastern  States 
from  access  to  the  Atlantic,  what  would  we  wish  the  Canadians 
to  do  unto  us?  If  we  refuse  to  do  likewise  unto  the  Canadians, 
we  may  baptize  our  babies  in  oceans  of  water,  we  may  build 
churches  as  high  as  the  Eiffel  Tower,  but  we  are  not  a  Christian 
nation.     Let  us  find  out  whether  we  are. 

In  urging  that  we  set  the  example  in  the  policy  of  mutual  con- 
cessions, I  only  referred  to  the  effect  it  would  have  on  Britain  and 
Germany.  In  reality  the  effect  would  be  far  wider.  Whoever 
has  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  international  politics  knows 
that  the  jealousy  and  distrust  which  keep  nations  armed  are  due 
for  the  most  part  to  unsettled  questions,  unnatural  boundaries, 
like  this  Alaska  boundary.  If  European  nations  are  to  arrive  at 
that  state  of  mutual  confidence  and  cordiality  which  will  enable 
them  to  dispense  with  armaments,  they  will  first  have  to  make  a 
number  of  mutual  concessions  on  these  questions.  We  can  not 
tell  them  what  these  concessions  should  be,  without  running  the 
risk  of  being  called  meddlers;  but  we  can  urge  them  by  the  most 
persuasive  of  all  methods,  that  of  example.  Concessions  would 
quickly  become  the  fashion,  for  no  nation  would  care  to  be  called 
ungentlemanly.  If  we  refuse  to  set  this  example,  and  yet  continue 
to  preach  peace,  we  must  not  be  astonished  to  hear  the  reply: 
"You  Americans  are  all  the  time  talking  about  peace  and  inter- 
national goodwill,  but  when  it  comes  to  removing  the  causes  of 

*  The  movement  toward  federation  came  to  a  successful  issue  in  the  resolution,  adopted 
by  the  Baltimore  Peace  Congress,  May  6,  19  n. 


STEIN  209 

international  illwill,  you  are  just  as  regardless  of  your  neighbors' 
feelings,  just  as  stubborn  as  any  of  us  in  maintaining  a  geographic 
absurdity,  a  geographic  atrocity,  a  thorn  in  your  neighbors'  flesh, 
simply  because  it  is  so  nominated  in  the  bond.  Why  beholdest  thou 
the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye  but  considerest  not  the  beam 
that  is  in  thine  own  eye?" 

At  present  the  Canadians  are  not  complaining,  because  the  incon- 
venience is  not  serious  so  long  as  the  country  behind  the  Panhandle 
is  practically  uninhabited.  But  in  a  year  or  two  the  Grand 
Trunk  Railway  will  be  finished,  and  immigrants  will  arrive  by  the 
thousands.  By  1914,  when  we  shall  celebrate  the  looth  anniver- 
sary of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  the  inconvenience  will  have 
become  acute.  If  we  leave  this  unnatural  boundary  unchanged, 
it  will  hang  like  a  pall  over  the  festivities.  The  grosteque  figure 
of  the  Panhandle  will  sit  at  the  festive  board  like  Banquo's  ghost. 
If  we  wish  to  make  that  celebration  a  conspicuous  landmark  in 
the  progress  of  the  peace  movement,  what  better  means  could  we 
find  than  to  relieve  our  Canadian  neighbors  of  this  night-mare, 
this  thorn  in  the  flesh,  this  standing  discourtesy!  What  are  fair 
words  when  the  deed  is  lacking?  A  body  without  a  soul,  a  corpse 
in  fine  shrouds  and  flowers.  Let  us  breathe  into  it  an  immortal 
soul,  the  soul  of  an  immortal  national  deed.  If  we  wish  to  have  a 
real  joyous  feast  of  good-fellowship  in  19 14,  let  us  be  good  fellows. 
All  Canada  would  come  down  to  get  acquainted  with  the  nation 
that  was  courteous  to  her  not  only  in  words  but  in  deed.  Our 
parent  nations  of  Europe  would  gaze  across  the  Atlantic  in  admir- 
ation and  envy,  and  would  soon  begin  to  say  to  one  another:  "See 
how  gentlemanly  the  Americans  are  to  the  Canadians!  Let  us 
go  and  do  likewise." 

Chairman  Burton:  The  next  speaker  is  Mr.  James  Brown 
Scott  of  the  American  Society  of  International  Law  and  the 
Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace.  It  is  with  great 
pleasure  that  I  present  him. 


2IO  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY  OF   INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT 

The  American  Society  of  International  Law  is  not  a  peace  society 
in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word.  Its  object  is  declared  in  the 
second  article  of  its  constitution  to  be  "to  foster  the  study  of  in- 
ternational law  and  promote  the  establishment  of  international 
relations  on  the  basis  of  law  and  justice."  It  regards  interna- 
tional law  as  an  existing  system  which  should  be  analyzed,  ex- 
pounded and  developed  scientifically  and  its  chief  aim  is  to  pro- 
mote or  to  foster  the  scientific  study,  expansion  and  development 
of  the  system  as  a  whole. 

The  founders  of  the  Society  felt  that  an  interest  could  be  created 
in  the  subject  of  international  law  by  the  organization  of  a  society 
composed  of  persons  already  familiar  with  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciples, whether  as  teachers,  lawyers  or  as  diplomats;  and  that  an 
annual  meeting  of  the  members  at  Washington  would  not  only 
strengthen  the  interest,  but  enlarge  and  broaden  it  by  an  exchange 
of  views  upon  various  questions  of  international  law. 

It  was  also  felt  that  the  preparation  of  papers  to  be  read  before 
the  meeting  would  force  the  speaker  to  examine  carefully  the  prin- 
ciples of  law  and  policy  underlying  the  subject  chosen  for  the  papers. 
That  the  papers  read  before  the  Society  would  spread  information 
among  its  members;  that  the  discussion  of  the  papers  would  neces- 
sarily involve  the  consideration  of  the  subject  from  various  points 
of  view,  so  that  the  conclusions  reached  would  be  not  merely  en- 
lightening, but  would  tend  to  a  clear  and  precise  formulation  of 
the  principles  which  either  do  or  should  regulate  the  conduct  of 
nations,  considered  as  members  of  the  family  of  nations. 

It  was  obvious  to  the  founders  that  the  purpose  of  the  Society 
would  not  be  fully  realized  if  the  papers  and  discussions  were  not 
made  a  matter  of  record  and  placed  within  the  reach  of  the  larger 
public  interested  in  the  questions,  but  not  present  at  the  various 
meetings.  Therefore  the  Society  organized  at  Lake  Mohonk  in 
1905  determined  that  the  proceedings  should  be  published  as  soon 
as  possible  after  the  annual  meetings,  which  have  been  held  reg- 


SCOTT  211 

ularly  since  1907.     A  volume  is  therefore  issued  each  year  which 
contains  the  texts  of  the  papers  read  and  the  discussions  had.     The 
volume  is  sent  to  each  member  of  the  Society  without  additional 
expense  and  is  ofifered  for  sale  to  non-members  at  a  modest  price. 
But  it  was  clear  that  the  organization  of  the  Society  and  the 
publication  of  the  proceedings  had  at  the  annual  meetings  would 
not   wholly  accomplish   the  purpose  which  the  founders  had  in  \ 
view,  for  it  was  not  sufl&cient  to  bring  specialists  of  international  \ 
law  together  for  a  few  days  of  each  year  and  to  exchange  views   ] 
on  theoretical  and  practical  questions.     The  members  should  have 
at  their  disposal  a  magazine  devoted  wholly  to  international  law^^^^ 
in  which  questions  of  theory  and  practice  could  be  discussed,  as 
well  as  questions  of  the  day  affecting  the  family  of  nations  be 
treated  in  the  light  of  theory  and  practice. 

No  journal  existed  in  the  English  speaking  world  wholly  devoted 
to  international  law;  therefore  the  Society  decided  to  issue  a  quar- 
retly  not  only  as  its  mouthpiece,  but  as  a  magazine  to  which  pub- 
licists might  contribute  their  views  on  all  subjects  of  an  interna- 
tional nature. 

In  January  1907,  the  first  number  of  the  American  Journal  of 
International  Law  was  published  and  it  has  more  than  justified 
its  existence;  for  it  is  not  only  the  one  journal  in  the  English  lan- 
guage devoted  wholly  to  international  law,  but  it  has  taken  its 
place  as  one  of  the  best  and  most  authoritative  journals  of  its  kind. 

The  founders  of  the  Society,  however,  were  not  content  to  create 
a  Society  for  the  study  of  international  law  and  an  organ  for  its 
exposition.  The  purpose  in  mind  was  broader,  namely,  to  "pro- 
mote the  establishment  of  international  relations  on  the  basis 
of    law    and    justice." 

They  believed  then  and  now  that  law  and  justice  are  as  essential 
to  the  family  of  nations  as  law  and  justice  are  indispensable  to  the 
welfare  of  the  individual;  that  relations  which  are  not  based  upon 
law  and  justice  cannot  be  permanent  and  that  peace  between 
nations  is  as  impossible  in  the  absence  of  law  and  justice  as  peace 
is  impossible  among  men  in  the  absence  of  law  and  justice  and  their 
regular  and  orderly  administration. 

Civilized  nations  have  their  laws  and  institutions  and  they  are 


212  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

gradually  conforming  to  the  requirements  of  justice.  The  family 
of  nations  has  its  law,  but  this  law,  based  upon  usage  and  custom 
is  rudimentary  and  inadequate  to  meet  international  needs.  An 
agreement  upon  law  based  upon  just  principles  is  a  prerequisite 
to  its  observance.  Therefore,  the  American  Society  of  Interna- 
tional Law  has  taken  up  the  question  of  the  codification  of  exist- 
ing principles  of  international  law  and  devoted  much  thought  and 
reflection  to  the  drafting  of  rules  and  principles  and  to  their  crea- 
tion where  such  principles  are  lacking. 

The  purpose  of  the  Society  is,  however,  not  to  codify  the  law  of 
nations  as  a  whole,  but  to  formulate  international  law  in  time  of 
peace;  that  is  to  say  to  frame  a  code,  which  shall  state  in  clear  and 
happy  wording,  principles  of  law  already  accepted  by  nations,  and 
to  devise  principles  of  law  which  should  regulate  their  peaceable 
intercourse.  The  members  of  the  Society  are  partisans  of  the 
judicial  settlement  of  international  disputes,  and  the  Society 
stands  for  the  estabUshment  of  a  permanent  international  tribunal 
in  which  controversies  between  nations  may  be  decided  by  judges 
trained  in  the  law,  just  as  suits  between  man  and  man  are  decided 
within  national  boundaries  by  judges  trained  in  the  law.  But 
before  the  law  can  be  administered  it  must  exist  or  be  created  and 
an  agreement  upon  it  reached.  An  international  court  could  not 
render  the  services  expected  of  it  without  a  system  of  law  to  be 
administered,  unless  the  judges  be  invested  with  power  to  make 
the  law  which  they  are  called  upon  to  declare  and  apply. 

It  is  not  believed  that  nations  would  confer  such  vast  powers 
upon  an  international  court.  A  tribunal  can  only  be  called  into 
being  by  the  action  of  nations  and  the  progress  already  made  in 
the  matter  of  a  court  of  arbitral  justice,  recommended  by  the 
Second  Hague  Peace  Conference  leads  to  the  belief  that  a  truly 
permanent  court  will  be  established  in  the  very  near  future.  The 
present  need  is  to  supply  the  law  which  this  tribunal  shall  admin- 
ister, and  it  seems  to  the  members  of  the  Society  that  a  careful, 
thoughtful,  conservative  statement  of  the  principles  of  justice 
which  should  regulate  the  intercourse  of  nations  can  be  made  by 
jurists  in  their  private  capacity,  leaving  to  the  governments  in 
their  wisdom  to  accept  or  reject  any  or  all  of  its  proposals. 


STEWART  213 

The  nations  must  create  an  international  court  if  they  are  to  accept 
its  authority.  Private  societies  and  jurists  may  create  the  code 
or  at  least  aid  in  its  creation.  Therefore,  in  the  broader  aspect  of 
the  peace  movement  the  American  Society  of  International  Law  is 
a  peace  society,  for  it  is  active  in  making  known  the  principles  of 
international  law  which  bind  and  restrain  nations,  and  it  is  endeav- 
oring to  the  full  extent  of  its  influence  to  promote  the  establish- 
ment of  international  relations  on  the  basis  of  law  and  justice 
without  which  peace  cannot  be  maintained  and  safeguarded. 

Chairman  Burton:  It  now  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  present 
to  you  Mr.  John  A.  Stewart,  of  New  York. 


A  CENTURY  OF  GOOD  WILL 

JOHN   A.    STEWART 

There  is  reason  for  serious  thought  in  the  continued  controversy 
in  London  between  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Morning  Post  which 
has  bitterly  attacked  the  proposed  arbitration  treaty  between 
America  and  Great  Britain.  The  Lord  Mayor,  in  reply  to  a  recent 
editorial  in  the  Post  opposing  the  Guildhall  arbitration  meeting, 
pointed  out  that  arbitration  is  not  a  question  for  the  government's 
politicians,  but  a  question  for  the  nation.  He  declared  that  the 
manner  and  force  of  the  movement  for  arbitration  is  unparalleled 
in  British  history.  The  Post's  rejoinder  argued  that  the  govern- 
ment and  not  the  people  was  planning  arbitration  with  the  United 
States;  that  the  government  and  not  the  people  is  drafting  the  treaty, 
and,  in  particular,  that  the  presence  on  the  Great  Lakes  of  Ameri- 
can training  ships  is  a  violation  of  the  Rush-Bagot  treaty  and  a 
menace  to  friendship. 

Such  opposition  to  an  arbitration  agreement,  the  terms  of  which 
are  even  now  a  matter  of  negotiation,  is  yet  of  service  to  the  ex- 
tent that  it  compels  consideration  of  and  an  answer  to  this  pro- 
position: 

Whether  it  is  not  fundamentally  true  that  there  can  be  no  endur- 
ing, binding,  arbitration  agreement,  even  among  peoples  having 


214  THIBD  AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

a  language,  a  literature,  and  common  social  and  commercial  inter- 
ests, unless  such  covenant  be  written  not  alone  on  parchment  bear- 
ing the  sign  manual  of  government  authority,  but,  what  is  of  thou- 
sand-fold greater  weight,  into  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  the 
American  and  British  peoples. 

This  controversy  and  this  thought  have  direct  relation  to  the 
motive  which  has  inspired  men  and  women  in  the  United  States, 
in  Great  Britain,  and  in  Canada  to  initiate  a  movement  to  bring 
about  the  celebration  of  an  event  that  concerned  more  directly 
the  peoples  of  these  countries  than  it  did  the  two  governments 
under  which,  on  Christmas  Eve,  1814,  there  was  signed  at  Ghent, 
by  the  respective  commissioners  of  the  high  contracting  parties, 
a  treaty  that  in  19 14,  in  the  mercy  of  Providence,  will  have  re- 
mained for  one  hundred  years  a  pledge  of  peace  kept  in  full  letter 
as  among  English  speaking  peoples,  and  a  covenant  in  spirit  that 
there  shall  never  more  be  war  between  us  and  them. 

It  is  true  that  on  occasion  there  has  been  bad  blood  between  us; 
that  at  several  points  along  the  way  from  the  signing  of  the  treaty 
imtil  today  we  have  felt  that  the  limit  of  patience  had  been  reached; 
and  at  times,  too,  there  has  been,  with  some  degree  of  justice,  ill- 
feeHng  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  toward  us;  yet  at  no  time  in 
the  past  century  has  there  existed  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people 
of  the  United  States  as  against  all  the  people  of  Great  Britain  any 
feeling  that  the  day  of  forbearance  had  passed  and  a  time  come 
when  the  matter  in  dispute  could  yield  only  to  the  arbitrament 
of  armed  force. 

We,  that  have  associated  ourselves  together  as  a  committee,  to 
membership  in  which  you  are  all  cordially  invited,  have  felt  that 
the  celebration  of  the  one  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  signing 
of  the  Ghent  treaty  was  a  matter  which  concerned  primarily  the 
English  speaking  peoples  the  world  over  and  not  primarily  English 
speaking  governments.  We  would  ask  the  peoples  of  the  world 
to  celebrate  this  anniversary  with  us,  beginning  by  a  happy  coin- 
cidence on  the  eve  of  that  day  of  all  the  days  of  the  year  which  is 
the  day  of  peace  and  of  the  Man  of  Good  Will.  The  leaders  in 
this  popular  movement,  the  men  ofl&cially  identified  with  our 
organization,  are  Theodore  Roosevelt,  honorary  chairman ;  Andrew 


STEWART  215 

Carnegie,  chairman;  Albert  K.  Smiley  and  Edwin  Ginn;  former 
vice-president  Charles  W.  Fairbanks,  honorary  chairman,  and 
Senator  Theodore  E.  Burton,  honorary  vice-chairman  of  executive 
committee;  as  vice-presidents  all  of  the  governors  of  the  States; 
Mr.  William  Jennings  Bryan,  Mr.  Alton  B.  Parker,  Associate 
Justice  Day,  Associate  Justice  Lurton,  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court;  Ambassadors  Reid  and  Dudley,  in  fact  almost  the 
entire  diplomatic  establishment  of  the  United  States,  and  repre- 
sentative men  from  all  parts  of  the  Union. 

It  is  our  plan  and  purpose  to  invite  to  meet  with  us  this  coming 
winter  representatives  of  English-speaking  peoples  everywhere, 
that  there  may  be  organized  to  formulate  a  program  and  to  plan 
for  helpful  interest  in  the  peace  cause  an  International  Committee 
under  whose  auspices  the  celebration  in  19 14-15  shall  take  place, 
cooperated  in  by  the  governments  of  Great  Britain,  the  United 
States,  Canada,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  Newfoundland.  It 
is  our  intent,  so  far  as  it  lie  within  the  power  of  our  organization 
to  bring  it  about,  to  make  the  celebration  of  the  one  hundredth 
anniversary  of  peace  among  English-speaking  peoples  a  peoples' 
celebration  to  be  participated  in  by  the  peoples  of  the  whole  world. 

It  is  in  consonance  with  the  will  and  the  spirit  of  the  times  that 
in  organizing  to  celebrate  the  continuance  for  one  hundred  years 
of  amity  between  us  and  Great  Britain,  and  the  nations  which  are 
her  off-spring,  we  recognize  the  newly  awakened  interest  on  the 
part  of  the  people  in  matters  which  most  directly  concern  them- 
selves. And  it  is  only  just  and  proper  that  the  committee  which 
has  had,  in  some  degree,  a  part  in  the  initiating  of  this  movement 
for  the  celebration  should  stand  with  the  people  in  urging  that  the 
celebration  be  undertaken  by  the  peoples  of  the  English  speaking 
world,  and  that  there  be  invited  to  join  with  us  in  this  celebration  in 
1 9 14- 1 5,  the  peoples  of  all  the  world.  For  while  governments 
may  exist  out  of  accord  with  the  majority  of  the  people  whom  they 
govern;  while  nations  may,  by  tradition;  be  put  into  the  position 
of  antagonism  to  other  nations,  yet  everywhere  the  world  over 
the  common  people  are  united  by  common  interests. 

Theirs  has  been  the  sacrifice  in  time  of  war,  and  the  burden  of 
taxation  theirs  when  peace  comes  after  war.     It  is  unthinkable 


2l6  THIRD   AMERICAN  PEACE    CONGRESS 

that  after  having  realized  in  such  fullness  the  blessings  of  peace 
for  so  many  years  the  peoples  of  the  English-speaking  world  will 
ever  again  engage  in  armed  conflict  among  themselves,  for  out  of 
this  peace  has  come  a  partial  reahzation  of  those  hopes  and  aspir- 
ations which  have  been  the  dream  of  the  world  through  all  the 
centuries.  It  is  our  belief  that  such  a  celebration  as  we  purpose, 
participated  in  by  all  the  peoples  of  the  world,  will  be  creative  of  a 
popular  sentiment  so  strong  for  peace  as  to  give  encouragement 
to  the  hope  that  some  of  the  ideals  of  today  may  be  realized  to- 
morrow— at  least  in  the  direction  of  partial  disarmament,  the 
establishment  of  courts  of  arbitral  justice  and  a  broadening  of  the 
scope  of  arbitration  agreements.  May  it  not  in  very  truth  be  said 
of  the  whole  peace  movement  of  which  this  proposed  celebration 
is  properly  a  part:  The  peace  cause  is  the  peoples'  cause;  war  their 
common  menace,  and  their  common  sacrifice;  and  the  debt  of  war 
their  common  burden.  War  will  end  only  when  the  people  will 
that  it  shall  end.  The  popular  celebration  of  an  event  of  such 
tremendous  importance  to  all  peoples  as  a  peace  compact  kept  for 
one  hundred  years  would  give,  through  the  resultant  creation  of 
sentiments  of  international  amity,  strength  and  impetus  to  every 
movement  that  has  as  its  inspiration  and  ideal  the  Bethlehem 
chorus — Glory  to  God  in  the  Highest!  Peace  on  Earth  to  men  of 
Good  Will! 

Chairman  Burton:  The  New  York  Peace  Society  has  accom- 
plished a  great  deal.  I  take  pleasure  in  calling  on  the  president 
of  that  Society,  Mr.  W.  H.  Short. 

A  POSITIVE  INTERNATIONAL  PROGRAM 

WILLIAM   H.    SHORT 

In  one  of  his  last  public  utterances,  the  late  Justice  Brewer 
said,  "There  are  three  great  forces  in  our  civilization,  each  of  which 
voices  for  international  peace.  First,  the  business  interests.  No- 
where are  there  more  varied  and  larger  business  enterprises  carried 
on  than  in  the  United  States.     All  these  interests  look  askance 


SHORT  217 

at  the  prospect  of  war.  They  hate  to  see  the  efforts  of  the  brainy 
turned  away  from  the  furtherance  of  these  interests  into  devising 
additional  means  of  killing  and  sowing  the  land  with  the  seeds  of 
destruction. 

"Second,  the  laborers.  The  great  mass  of  the  American  people 
are  toilers.  They  know  that  war  takes  life,  that  the  army  is 
drawn  from  their  numbers,  and  that  their  homes  are  drained  to 
fill  the  cemeteries  of  the  battlefield.  They  also  realize  full  well 
that  the  cost  of  armies  and  of  war  is  enormous.  We  hear  from  them 
already  in  the  declarations  of  their  organized  bodies  that  arbitra- 
tion must  be  the  rule,  that  international  peace  must  be  the  object, 
and  that  military  and  naval  arniaments  must  stop  their  growth. 

"Third,  Woman.  No  mother  nurses  her  baby  boy  and  rears 
him  to  manhood  without  dread  that  his  life  may  in  its  prime  be 
cut  off  by  the  merciless  bullet.  Nowhere  in  the  world  is  she  so 
potent  a  force  in  public  life  as  in  this  country,  and  you  may  be  sure 
that  that  force  will  be  ere  long  concentrated  in  steadfast  opposition 
to  war  and  in  favor  of  the  settlement  of  international  disputes 
by  arbitration." 

It  can  also  be  asserted,  more  positively  than  two  years  ago,  that 
the  church  and  organized  religion  is  for  international  peace. 

President  Taft,  speaking  at  a  public  banquet  a  few  months  ago, 
declared  in  still  more  general  terms  that  men  in  civilized  countries 
today  want  peace  and  not  war.     "We  are  all  in  favor  of  virtue 
he  said :  we  are  all  in  favor  of  goodness,  and  we  are  all  in  favor  of 
peace.     .     .     .     We  are  all  opposed  to  war,  because  war  is  hell."      c/"^ ^^^ 
A  thousand  voices,  from  all  nations,  unite  in  proclaiming  that  the      ^  ^^  C   ^ 
world  is  tired  of  war  and  looking  longingly  towards  peace,  and  who         ,    ^^^  x 
will  deny  that  much  progress  has  been  made  when  war  is  branded 
as  hell,  and  peace  put  in  the  same  category  as  virtue  and  goodness ! 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  all  is  won.  There  are  many 
items  in  the  peace  program  upon  which  general  agreement  has  not 
been  reached.  Many  demand  the  immediate  reduction  of  arma- 
ments, some  going  to  the  length  of  advocating  non-resistance. 
Another  group,  claiming  to  love  peace  as  much  as  these,  believe 
for  the  present  in  the  maintenance  of  large  armaments,  not  being 
convinced  that  people  of  other  nations  are  sincere  in  their  advocacy 


2l8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  peace.  Still  another  very  large  class  of  men,  while  admitting 
the  desirability  and  value  of  peace,  fear  that  after  all  it  is  only  a 
sweet  dream  of  impractical  minds.  But  chiefest  of  all  the  tasks 
before  us,  "the  largest  proposition  ever  yet  conceived  by  the  mind 
of  man,"  as  General  Chittenden  has  lately  declared,  is  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  agencies  which  shall  bring  us  to  the  desired  goal  of 
peace  with  justice. 

This  diversity  of  opinion  on  matters  which,  however  important, 
are  still  secondary,  while  there  is  practical  agreement  on  the 
main  points  seems  to  mark  this  as  a  time  for  uniting  the  forces 
which  favor  peace  in  a  supreme  effort  to  obtain  their  goal.  Much 
of  the  preliminary  work  has  been  done — all  honor  to  the  prophets 
who  have  taught  the  world  the  hideousness  of  war.  It  is  clearly 
undesirable  for  a  peace  society  in  any  city  today  to  occupy  a  plat- 
form which  compels  groups  of  people  who  would  advance  the 
cause  of  peace  to  organize  separately  for  the  purpose.  It  is  un- 
wise, by  insistence  on  a  divisive  idea,  to  compel  the  organization 
of  a  Friends'  peace  society,  a  big-armament  peace  society,  an  arbi- 
tration society,  and  still  another  to  study  and  eliminate  the  causes 
of  war.  It  seems  much  better  for  the  advocates  of  peace  to  illus- 
/trate  that  unity  and  spirit  of  concession  which  they  preach  by 
presenting  in  one  great  organization  a  united  front  against  the 
spirit  of  war.  Breadth  and  unity  of  this  kind  the  New  York 
Peace  Society  has  consistently  tried  to  exemplify,  and  with  some 
success.  "Its  platform  is  a  broad  one,"  it  declares,  "and  there 
is  room  within  its  fellowship  for  men  who  dififer  widely  as  to  meas- 
ures and  methods.  It  includes  both  those  who  deny  all  place  to 
armaments,  and  those  who  fear,  in  the  present  state  of  civilization, 
to  abolish  large  armies  and  navies.  It  urges,  however,  neither 
non-resistence  nor  great  armaments,  but  exists  to  strengthen  the 
forces  which  are  leading  toward  international  goodwill,  and  the 
substitution  of  law  for  war." 

A  positive  and  constructive  program  is  the  only  one  on  which  all 
the  friends  of  peace  can  agree.  Advocate  disarmament,  and  voices 
are  immediately  raised  in  question  and  protest.  A  society  which 
puts  in  the  forefront  of  its  program  the  proposal  to  substitute  law 
for  war  will  find  new  friends  constantly  coming  to  its  standard. 


SHORT  219 

A  program  of  this  kind,  moreover,  is  the  only  one  that  can  per-~~? 
suade  the  skeptical  that  international  peace  is  obtainable.  It  has  | 
besides,  the  supreme  excellence  of  setting  out  on  a  straight  road  1 
towards  the  desired  end.  -^ 

Being  situated  in  a  great  commercial  and  manufacturing  city, 
whose  daily  life  brings  it  in  touch  with  every  quarter  of  the  world, 
the  New  York  Peace  Society  has  instinctively  felt  that  it  must 
stand  for  positive  things.  For  over  three  years  no  remonstrance 
of  any  kind  has  gone  out  from  its  office.  Every  member  has  felt 
free  to  express  his  convictions  for  or  against  battleships  and  forti- 
fications. The  Society,  however,  has  believed  that  its  work 
could  be  best  done  by  standing  prominently  for  the  building  up  of 
those  international  institutions  which  shall  give  us  an  organized 
world.  It  has  advocated  constantly  and  consistently  the  extension 
of  law  into  the  international  sphere,  as  it  has  already  been  extended 
from  time  to  time  into  other  realms;  at  one  time  putting  an  end 
to  private  war,  later  to  the  duel,  and  still  more  recently  to  war 
between  the  component  parts  of  great  nations.  At  the  time  of 
the  organization  of  the  Society  it  was  declared  to  be  its  chief  pur- 
pose to  bring  influence  to  bear  for  the  extension  of  the  principle 
of  arbitration,  the  strengthening  and  exalting  of  The  Hague  Tri- 
bunal and  the  erection  of  The  Hague  Conferences  into  a  permanent 
international  congress.  It  has  from  time  to  time  been  a  strong 
advocate  of  the  permanent  arbitral  court  and  of  all  inclusive 
arbitration  treaties.  With  the  accomplishment  of  this  international 
task  as  its  avowed  object,  it  has  been  gratifying  to  see  a  gradual 
change  taking  place  in  the  attitude  towards  the  society  of  the  gen- 
eral public  and  the  daily  press  until  from  one  of  derision  they  have 
come  to  show  respect  and  ready  cooperation. 

A  further  and  essential  feature  of  such  a  positive  program  for  a 
peace  society  as  has  been  referred  to  is  the  practical  application 
and  the  practice  of  the  spirit  of  international  goodwill  and  brother- 
hood upon  which  only  world  organization  can  be  built.  Senator 
Elihu  Root,  speaking  to  the  New  York  Peace  Society  two  years 
ago  said,  ''when  public  opinion  has  risen  to  such  height  all  over 
the  world,  that  the  peoples  of  every  country  treat  the  peoples  of 
every  other  country  with  the  human  kindness  that  binds  home 


*■ 


220  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

communities  together,  you  will  see  an  end  of  war — and  not  until 
then."  On  the  same  occasion  he  expressed  the  opinion  that  an 
important  activity  of  peace  loving  men  and  women  ought  to  be 
to  aid  the  growth  of  such  a  feeling  of  international  brotherhood, 
"not  by  great  demonstration,  but  by  that  quiet,  that  resistless 
influence,  which  among  great  bodies  of  men  makes  up  the  tendency 
of  mankind,  and  in  the  long  process  of  the  years  moves  men  from 
1  savagery  and  brutality  to  peace  and  brotherhood."  Such  work 
\/*  the  New  York  Peace  Society  had  been  doing,  and  has  continued 

to  do — ^indeed,  it  occupies  in  our  great  commercial  and  composite 
city  a  place  unique  among  the  cities  of  the  whole  world  for  the 
rendering  of  such  a  service. 

Among  the  manifold  activities  of  the  society  I  have  the  honor 
to  represent,  I  have  thought  it  eminently  fitting  to  mention  two 
or  three  which  have  as  their  object  the  expression  of  international 
good  will. 

There  are  two  nations  whose  complicated  home  problems,  and 
whose  close  relation  to  the  United  States  afford  unusual  oppor- 
tunity for  friendly  helpfulness.  One  of  these  is  Turkey.  For 
two  generations  or  more  American  Schools  and  citizens  have  been 
moulding  the  ideals  of  her  young  men  and  women.  At  last  a 
heroic  effort  is  being  made  by  her  people  to  redeem  their  land  from 
the  long  years  of  misrule  into  which  stupid  tyranny  had  plunged 
her.  This  would  seem  to  be  the  supreme  moment  in  the  rela- 
tions of  these  two  countries  for  our  enlightened  and  liberty-loving 
republic  to  extend  a  hand  of  friendship  across  the  sea.  Through 
the  New  York  Society,  several  American  universities  have 
offered  free  tuition  to  groups  of  Turkish  students,  and  invitation 
has  been  sent  to  the  Turkish  minister  of  education  inviting  accept- 
ance of  this  offer.  The  advance  has  been  met  with  eagerness, 
and  the  first  delegation  of  young  men  from  Turkey  is  study- 
ing in  Columbia  University.  An  able  committee  which  inspires 
confidence,  both  in  Turkey  and  the  United  States,  is  making  itself 
responsible  for  the  wise  and  sympathetic  accomplishment  of  the 
task. 

Last  autumn  our  sister  republic  to  the  south  was  on  the  verge 
of  revolution.     The  close  commercial  relations  existing  between 


SHORT  2  21 

the  two  countries,  the  large  investment  of  American  capital  in 
Mexico,  together  with  the  recollection  of  past  aggression  by  the 
stronger  nation  agaisnt  the  weaker,  all  combined  to  create  a  sit- 
uation where  agencies  for  the  cultivation  of  mutual  understanding, 
and  the  expression  of  friendly  feeling,  were  greatly  to  be  desired. 
At  this  juncture,  officers  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society  took  the 
initiative  in  forming  the  Mexico  Society  of  New  York,  and  lent 
the  services  of  its  ofl&ce  for  this  purpose.  A  strong  and  flourish- 
ing society  composed  jointly  of  Mexican  and  American  citizens 
has  resulted,  already  justifying  itself  by  its  deeds,  and  full  of  prom- 
ise for  future  usefulness. 

The  one  other  line  of  activity  which  I  shall  mention  looks  to 
the  same  end — the  practical  and  helpful  expression  of  international 
goodwill,  and  the  cultivation  of  mutual  understanding — but  is 
more  general  in  its  scope.  From  the  date  of  its  organization  the 
New  York  Peace  Society  has  now  and  then  been  the  host  of  impor- 
tant people  from  abroad.  Experience  taught  the  importance  and 
value  of  taking  advantage  of  the  many  occasions  of  this  kind  which 
the  port  of  New  York  affords. 

A  Board  of  International  Hospitality,  strongly  officered  and 
with  an  eminent  membership,,  has  therefore  been  organized,  and 
its  object  announced  to  be  that  of  extending  "proper  and  adequate 
hospitality  to  high  representatives  of  foreign  governments  and 
other  distinguished  visitors  to  our  shores,  thus  aiding  the  movement 
towards  international  goodwill  by  the  cultivation  of  personal  and 
friendly  relations."  The  service  of  the  society  in  this  sphere  had 
become  so  generally  recognized  and  valued  that  its  fitness  to  take 
the  initiative  in  this  important  work  seems  to  have  been  generally 
recognized  in  the  city. 

In  closing,  I  will  only  say  that  it  is  the  purpose  and  hope  of  the 
New  York  Peace  Society  to  be  as  broad  and  generous  as  the  sub- 
ject with  which  it  deals  and  the  city  in  which  it  does  its  work; 
while  it  always  remembers  that  it  is  organized  for  the  purpose 
of  hastening  by  every  means  within  its  power  the  growth  of  those 
world  institutions  which,  by  the  substitution  of  law  for  war,  can 
alone  bring  international  peace. 


222  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Chairman  Burton:  I  now  take  pleasure  in  introducing  Rev. 
Gilbert  Reid  of  the  International  Institute  of  China, 

A  CHINESE  PEACE  SOCIETY 

GILBERT    REID 

I  have  the  honor  of  representing  the  International  Institute  of 
China,  with  headquarters  in  the  city  of  Shanghai,  an  organization 
where  Occidentals  and  Orientals  unite  in  practical  efforts  for  uni- 
versal peace,  by  cultivation  of  harmonies  and  friendly  relations 
between  East  and  West,  with  better  mutual  understanding,  appre- 
ciation and  esteem,  and  through  larger  recognition  of  justice, 
righteousness  and  fair-play,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  China 
by  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  Hence  the  aim  of  this  Institute 
is  summed  up  in  two  words,  contained  in  the  seal  of  the  incorpo- 
ration, "Harmony"  and  "Truth,"  Realizing  the  vital  bearings 
of  Far  Eastern  questions  on  the  large  question  of  international 
peace,  we  center  our  operations,  not  so  much  in  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica, as  in  China — the  strategic  center  of  this  world-wide  movement. 
We  urge  the  peace-spirit  rather  than  the  war-spirit,  not  only  on 
China's  leaders,  but  on  the  nations  of  Europe,  on  Japan,  and  on  the 
United  States,  as  they  together  face  the  growing,  complex  prob- 
lems of  China  in  this  new  era  of  progress  and  development. 

In  New  York  you  have  the  American  Association  of  International 
Conciliation,  consisting  only  of  Americans,  and  in  Paris  the  French 
Association  of  the  same,  consisting  only  of  Frenchmen.  Our  In- 
ternational Institute  might  well  be  called  the  International  Asso- 
ciation of  International  Conciliation,  for  in  the  one  organization, 
devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  friendliness  and  concord.  Occidental 
and  Oriental  are  alike  represented.  In  our  membership,  actuated 
by  the  sentiment  of  cordiality,  and  operating  on  the  basis  of 
equality,  are  Chinese,  Manchus  and  Mongols,  Japanese,  Austral- 
ians, Canadians,  and  Americans,  English,  Scotch,  Irish  and  Welsh, 
French  and  German,  Spanish  and  Italians,  Belgians  and  Dutch, 
Danes,  Swedes  and  Norwegians,  Russians  and  Austrians — ^in  the 
one  organization  in  the  one  country,  meeting  together  not  once 


REID  223 

a  year  or  once  in  two  years,  but,  if  they  so  desire,  from  week  to 
week.  We  aim,  we  plan,  we  work,  for  peace  that  is  inter-racial 
and  international — peace  between  the  white  race  and  the  yellow 
race,  no  yellow  peril  to  the  white  race,  and  no  white  threat  to  the 
yellow  race — and  peace  among  all  the  nations  gathered  together 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Pacific,  with  temptation  to  self-aggrandize- 
ment, exploitation,  encroachment,  but  with  a  divine  call  to  mutual 
helpfulness,  reciprocal  obligations  and  a  due  regard  to  the  sovereign 
rights  of  one  another.  To  consummate  so  desirable  an  object,  not 
only  is  personal  influence  exerted,  but  an  organization,  with  full 
property  powers,  has  been  legally  incorporated. 

To  further  the  objects  of  universal  peace,  as  dependent  on  inter- 
national righteousness,  this  Institute  of  China  makes  definite 
endeavor  to  secure  harmony  and  justice  between  Chinese  and  per- 
sons of  other  nationalities  as  participating  in  the  three  great  inter- 
ests, commercial,  educational  and  religious.  Our  Shanghai  Com- 
mittee in  the  commercial  section,  consists  of  eleven  Chinese  mer- 
chants and  eleven  foreign  merchants,  namely,  two  Americans,  two 
British,  two  Germans,  two  Japanese,  one  Frenchman,  one  Hol« 
lander  and  one  Russian,  all  aiming  to  secure  unanimity  of  action 
in  improving  both  Chinese  internal  trade  and  her  foreign  commerce. 
The  Shanghai  Committee  in  the  educational  section  consists  of 
educators  and  men  of  scholarship,  both  in  mission  schools,  in  gov- 
ernment institutions,  and  those  under  private  initiative  and  sup- 
port, aiming  to  secure  cooperation  with  economy  of  energy.  The 
Shanghai  Committee  in  the  religious  section  consists  of  representa- 
tive men  in  the  Protestant  denominations,  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  in  the  Hebrew  faith,  and  also  in  Confucianism,  Buddhism, 
Taoism  and  Mohammedanism,  aiming  to  secure  greater  religious 
toleration,  with  less  persecution,  fewer  "missionary  riots," and  a 
diminishing  feeling  of  bigotry,  contempt  and  schism. 

Similar  committees,  with  similar  combination  for  mutual 
instruction  and  benefit,  are  to  be  formed  in  all  the  centres  of  China, 
where  Chinese  leaders  and  foreign  residents  sympathize  with  the 
objects  in  view  and  are  willing  to  be  associated  together.  The 
scope  of  the  operations  directed  by  this  International  Institute 
is  limited  to  no  one  locality.     The  whole  of  China  needs  to  be 


2  24  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

taught  the  good  policy  of  being  on  friendly  terms  with  the  ''out- 
side world,"  and  to  no  less  a  degree  the  "outside  world"  needs 
to  be  taught  the  advantage  to  itself  of  being  on  friendly  terms 
with  China.  Both  sides  need  to  follow  the  path  of  right  and  the 
ways  of  peace. 

What,  now,  are  the  methods  best  suited  to  the  Chinese,  in 
meeting  these  aims  of  peace  and  in  carrying  out  these  activities? 
In  brief,  the  method  must  be  one  of  conciliation.  Specifically, 
the  most  appropriate  method  is  the  social  one.  Personal  acquaint- 
ance, exchange  of  calls,  conversation,  afford  a  medium  for  bring- 
ing ideas  to  bear  in  a  most  natural  and  effective  way  on  men  who 
stand  at  the  head  of  affairs.  Receptions,  luncheons  and  ban- 
quets, add  emphasis  to  the  social  feature  of  international  inter- 
course, when  large  numbers  of  Occidentals  and  Orientals  come 
together  and  inevitably  cultivate  the  spirit  of  friendliness  and 
esteem,  without  which  no  peace  can  be  stable  or  permanent.  A 
second  method  is  the  literary  one,  publishing  in  Chinese  a  monthly 
periodical  devoted  to  the  interests  of  peace  and  conciliation,  and 
also  publishing  and  circulating  pamphlets  and  books  bearing  on 
these  and  kindred  topics.  Such  literature  prepared  in  suitable 
style  is  a  mighty  weapon  for  the  cause  of  peace.  A  third  method, 
adapted  in  these  later  days,  is  the  method  of  public  address  and 
lectures.  This  method  is  useful  in  creating  a  popular  sentiment, 
especially  in  resisting  agitation  for  war,  boycotts,  and  other  forms 
of  hostility  to  foreigners  and  foreign  governments.  A  fourth 
method  is  that  of  conference  and  committees,  where  select  persons 
from  both  East  and  West,  having  identity  of  aims,  meet  to  dis- 
cuss and  to  plan  problems  of  international  concern.  A  fifth 
method  is  that  of  class-room  instruction,  influencing  the  great 
student  class.  A  sixth  method  is  the  official  or  semi-official  one, 
wherein  memorials  are  presented  to  the  central  and  provincial 
governments,  discussing  questions  bearing  on  universal  peace 
and  the  principles  of  universal  righteousness.  Fortunately,  the 
International  Institute,  having  been  sanctioned  by  the  imperial 
government,  has  direct  approach  to  the  authorities  both  in  Pe- 
king and  in  the  provinces,  and  needs  no  introduction  or  interpo- 
sition from  any  legation  or  any  foreign  government.     For  this 


REID  225 

reason,  the  arguments  presented  carry  as  much  weight  as  they 
would  if  pressed  on  the  attention  of  the  Chinese  by  the  dip- 
lomats  of   foreign   governments. 

From  this  it  can  be  seen  that  not  only  is  it  important  to  con- 
centrate on  the  Orient  efforts  for  peace  just  as  much  as  on  Europe 
or  America,  ibut  such  efforts  are  acceptable  to  the  traditional 
spirit  of  the  Chinese  and  to  the  teachings  of  their  great  philoso- 
phers. It  is  easy  to  argue  for  arbitration,  because  the  method 
of  arbitration  has  existed  in  China  for  thousands  of  years.  No 
great  argument  is  needed  in  favor  of  disarmament,  for  China 
at  the  present  time  is  without  a  navy,  and  has  no  desire  to  have 
one,  unless  forced  to  have  it  through  pressure  from  abroad. 
I  am  confident  that  China  would  be  willing  to  submit  to  just 
arbiters  every  question  that  may  arise  between  her  government 
and  all  the  other  governments  of  the  world.  If  the  other  govern- 
ments can  be  persuaded  to  do  the  same  in  their  relations  with 
China,  there  is  no  possibility  of  collision,  of  war,  or  of  the  increase 
of  army  and  navy,  to  the  detriment  of  the  principles  of  peace. 
This  Institute,  therefore,  does  what  it  can  to  further  these  inter- 
ests, not  only  with  the  Chinese,  but  with  the  people  of  other 
nations  having  relations  with  China.  It  is  fittingly  called  the 
International  Institute  of  China,  and  the  greetings  of  both  the 
Chinese  and  foreign  members  are  extended  to  this  National  Peace 
Congress. 

Chairman  Burton:  You  all  remember  that  in  the  month 
of  March  President  Taft  expressed  himself  to  the  effect  that 
arbitration  treaties  should  be  framed  which  would  provide  for 
the  settlement  of  all  disputes  without  exception.  That  statement 
was  made  before  the  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League, 
New  York.  Its  field  secretary,  Mrs.  Elmer  E.  Black,  is  here 
today  and  will  address  you.  I  take  pleasure  in  presenting  Mrs. 
Black. 


226  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

THE  NEW  WORLD-CONSCIOUSNESS 

MRS.    ELMER   E.    BLACK 

In  the  face  of  the  rapid  development  of  modern  civilization 
we  are  as  those  who  dream.  All,  however,  is  reality.  The  won- 
der of  our  day  is — not  that  we  build  forty-story  houses,  or  tunnel 
the  Hudson  River,  or  even  invent  guns  that  will  shoot  across 
the  Great  Lakes,  but  that  we  think  under  one  set  of  terms  one 
day,  and  on  the  next  may  have  risen  into  a  transformed  thought- 
world. 

The  wonder  of  our  times  is  that  the  whole  outlook  upon  man, 
the  entire  attitude  toward  life,  changes  unconsciously  in  a  day. 
When  we  recollect  the  thought-world  in  which  we  ourselves  were 
living  only  fifteen  years  ago,  do  we  not  seem  new  beings,  or  to 
be  living  in  a  new  world?  As  an  instance,  the  word  "interna- 
tionalism," which  is  everywhere  being  used,  was  seldom  heard  in 
its  wide,  modern  sense  a  decade  ago.  Nowadays,  "international" 
is  one  of  the  commonest  words  on  our  lips,  a  leading  word  in  our 
newspapers,  and  the  great  congresses  of  all  kinds  are  international. 

But  there  is  a  far  more  striking  illustrations  of  this  meteorlike 
rate  of  evolution,  of  almost  miraculous  transformations  of  the 
thought  habits  of  years,  and  it  is  to  this  phenomenon  I  wish  to 
call  your  attention  this  afternoon.  I  refer  to  the  sudden  lifting 
of  the  people  from  national  consciousness  into  world-conscious- 
ness. Is  there  anything  more  startling  than  this — that  we  who 
were  yesterday  thinking  in  terms  of  the  nation  are  today  thinking 
in  terms  of  the  world?  It  seems  as  though  only  a  night  had 
intervened  between  the  valley  of  old  and  the  mountain  top  of  new 
thinking.  After  ten  years  only,  our  previous  national  conscious- 
ness seems  at  present  provincial,  for  we  think  in  terms  of  the 
world. 

This  world-consciousness  has  in  a  few  years  advanced  far. 
It  is  the  great  promise  of  the  peace  movement.  Personally,  it 
13  to  me  the  basis  of  my  faith  in  it.  Because  I  see  everywhere 
this  new  habit  of  thinking;  this  growing  oneness  of  humanity; 
this  deepening  sense  of  brotherhood  and  kinship  of  soul  stronger 
and  more  enduring  than  any  mere  national  distinctions — because 


BLACK  227 

of  these  things,  I  believe  that  the  promise  of  world-peace  and  the 
reign  of  law  are  not  only  feasible  but  certain  of  fulfilment. 

The  leaders  in  this  movement  know  and  feel  this  growing  world- 
consciousness.  It  is  becoming  clearer  from  the  midst  of  the  chaos 
of  our  time  to  the  vision  of  those  whose  eyes  have  been  anointed. 
They  hear  its  music  above  the  earthly  discords.  The  great  mass 
of  the  people,  however,  have  as  yet  only  begun  partially  and 
vaguely   to    comprehend   it. 

Herein  lies  the  great  task  of  the  peace  societies — fostering  this 
world-consciousness;  educating  the  people  into  it;  showing  them 
its  inevitableness;  interpreting  the  rapid  and  confusing  processes 
which  take  place  so  fast  that  they  can  hardly  be  fully  understood; 
showing  them  the  manifold  signs  of  its  ultimate  fruition. 

The  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League  has  gladly  as- 
sumed this  task  from  the  beginning.  We  have  felt  sure  that  this 
new  world-spirit  was  in  our  very  midst.  We  saw  everywhere 
the  greatest  minds  thinking  in  world-terms;  thinking  of  humanity 
as  well  as  of  their  fellow-citizens;  thinking  of  themselves  also  as 
citizens  of  the  world,  and  not  merely  of  their  own  nation.  We 
have  realized  this,  and  said:  "This  is  for  all  the  people,  as  well 
as  for  the  prophets.  The  prophet  simply  climbs  where  all  must 
follow." 

We  have  been  trying  in  the  following  ways  to  convince  the 
people  that  this  world-consciousness  was  an  actuality.  By  show- 
ing them  how  at  last  all  the  world  has  come  together  at  The 
Hague  Conferences,  and  has  been  considering  the  welfare,  not  of 
one  nation  but  of  all  nations.  What  a  symbol  of  new  world- 
consciousness!  The  poet's  ''parliament  of  man"  has  come,  in 
these  periodic  conferences  at  The  Hague. 

We  have  demonstrated  how  this  world-consciousness  is  expand- 
ing incredibly  fast  by  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  first  ten  years 
of  this  century  witnessed  the  signing  of  more  than  a  hundred 
arbitration  treaties.  True,  we  built  two  battleships  in  1908 — 
but,  remember,  we  signed  fourteen  arbitration  treaties  during 
that   same  year. 

We  have  gone  a  step  further,  and  proclaimed  that  world-con 
sciousness  must  be  hastened  by  making  these  treaties  unlimited. 
It  was  at  one  of  our  League  dinners  that  the  President  of  the 


2  28  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

United  States  made  his  world-famous  utterance,  in  which  he 
declared  that  hereafter  arbitration  treaties  should  include  all 
questions  whatsoever,  even  the  honor  of  a  country. 

We  have  tried  to  foster  everywhere  the  new  patriotism — not  the 
old  patriotism  which  was  confined  to  war,  or  which  was  rather 
hatred  of  another  country  than  a  devoted  love  of  one's  own — that 
spirit  which  recognizes  that  to  put  country  above  personal  gain 
or  comfort  at  any  and  all  times  is  true  patriotism;  above  all,  that 
to  make  one's  own  country  lead  the  world  towards  peace  is  the 
highest  patriotism  of  all. 

In  these,  and  in  many  other  ways — particularly  by  diplomacy 
the  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League  is  endeavoring  to 
bring  the  people  to  appreciate  that  which  you  and  I  had  already 
seen  long  since. 

I  am  greatly  interested  personally  in  woman's  work  for  peace, 
and  wish  in  closing,  to  say  one  word  about  it.  I  believe  that 
woman's  opportunities  are  greater  in  this  than  in  almost  any  other 
field.  Her  sympathies  are  naturally  broad,  and  the  work  of 
welding  nations  calls  for  great,  broad,  charitable,  sympathetic 
minds. 

As  she  rises  from  her  older  status  of  the  silent  comforter  of  man 
to  be  a  commanding  factor  in  the  thought  and  action  of  the  world, 
she  can,  if  she  will,  be  equally  influential  in  the  great  peace  cause — 
as  well  as  find  in  it  a  field  of  endeavor  full  of  interest  and  charm. 

Her  battles  have  always  been  won  by  moral  force,  rather  than 
by  arms.  Now  that  man  is  beginning  to  see  that  moral  force 
is  more  powerful  than  powder,  and  is  seeking  to  transfer  his  bat- 
tles into  the  moral  fields  of  Hague  Courts  and  of  arbitration,  who 
is  more  fitting  to  lead  the  way  than  she  who  has  always  won  her 
battles  by  the  pure,  strong  force  of  reason,  love  and  forbearance? 

The  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League  believes  that  a 
common  world-consciousness,  the  sense  of  citizenship  in  humanity, 
the  habit  of  thinking  in  terms  for  the  whole  world,  is  necessary 
before  permanent  world  peace  can  be  assured.  World  unity 
will  lead  to  international  peace! 

Let  us  all  rejoice  that  this  world-consciousness  has  developed 
so  fast  in  our  day! 


BEALS  229 

Chairman  Burton:  The  American  Peace  Society  has  many 
branches,  among  them  being  one  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  one  in 
Chicago,  and  another  here  in  Baltimore.  One  of  the  most 
energetic  associations  for  the  promotion  of  peace  is  the  Chicago 
Peace  Society,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  is  largely  responsi- 
ble for  its  usefulness.     I  take  pleasure  in  introducing  Dr.  Beals. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals:  I  ask  leave  to  have  my  address 
printed,  as  the  hour  is  growing  late. 

THE  CHICAGO  PEACE  OFFICE 

CHARLES    E.    beals 

The  storyistoldof  an  old  time  military  company  which  consisted 
of  a  dozen  ofl&cers  and  one  lone  private.  The  private  is  reported 
to  have  said  that  he  could  go  through  the  setting-up  exercises, 
the  facings,  the  manual  of  arms,  and  the  ** forward  march"  move- 
ment without  difficulty,  but  that  when  the  order  ''Deploy  as 
skirmishers"  was  given,  his  system  was  horribly  racked  if  he  tried 
to  carry  out  the  command. 

If  the  much-officered  private  who  figured  as  the  hero  of  this 
story  were  alive  today,  and  if  he  were  sufficiently  converted  from 
the  errors  of  his  ways  so  that  he  could  be  detailed  as  a  peace  sol- 
dier to  man  the  Chicago  peace  office,  he  would  think  that  his 
former  impossible  task  was  as  nothing  compared  with  the  duties 
and  opportunities  of  his  new  warfare.  He  would  find  that  he 
would  have  to  "deploy  as  skirmishers"  for  almost  an  entire  army, 
instead  of  for  a  single  company. 

For  the  Chicago  peace  office  fulfils  a  double  function.  It  is 
the  seat  of  the  field  secretaryship  of  the  oldest  and  strongest 
peace  organization  in  America,  if  not  in  the  world,  namely  the 
American  Peace  Society;  it  is  also  the  headquarters  of  the  Chicago 
Peace  Society,  which  is  a  branch  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

The  duties  of  the  field  secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society 
are  as  follows: 

*'i.  The  organization  of  branch  societies,  and  the  visiting  and 
cooperation  with  the  State  and  other  local  branches. 


23©  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

2.  Attending,  and  promoting  the  cause  of  peace  at  religious, 
educational,  industrial  and  other  national,  state  and  local  conven- 
tions. 

3.  Assisting  in  the  organizing  and  holding  of  meetings  on  arbi- 
tration and  peace  wherever  possible. 

4.  Cooperating  with  the  Intercollegiate  Peace  Association  in 
work  in  the  universities  and  colleges. 

5.  Soliciting  legacies,  contributions,  memberships,  etc. 

6.  Appointment  of  local  agents  to  take  memberships,  subscrip- 
tions, etc." 

It  is  evident  that  with  the  entire  United  States  for  a  field,  a 
man  might  well  devote  his  entire  time  and  strength  to  either  one 
of  the  six  tasks  enumerated.  But  as  the  treasury  does  not  per- 
mit the  employment  of  six  traveling  workers,  the  Field  Secretary 
endeavors  to  do  as  much  as  he  can  along  all  these  lines  of  activity, 
being  guided  largely  by  the  opportunities  which  open.  That  is, 
his  plan  is  to  devote  himself  to  the  things  that  seem  ripest  for 
results  and  promise  to  count  the  most  for  the  investment  of  the 
time  and  strength  and  money  expended. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Chicago  is  almost  a  world  in  itself,  and  when 
one  attempts  to  do  some  intensive  pacifist  work  in  the  local  field, 
he  finds  between  1000  and  2000  churches,  4500  schools,  hundreds 
of  clubs,  and  other  openings  without  number.  Even  if  a  man 
should  confine  himself  to  the  purely  local  work  he  would  need  to 
"spread  himself"  in  the  attempt  to   "deploy  as  skirmishers." 

The  present  Chicago  Peace  Society  was  organized  January  4, 
1910.  It  was  the  outcome  of  a  former  Chicago  Peace  Society 
and  the  Second  National  Peace  Congress.  In  1902,  a  society 
was  organized  in  Chicago  as  a  branch  of  the  American  Peace 
Society.  Rev.  Hiram  W.  Thomas,  D.D.,  who  for  over  twenty  years 
was  the  pastor  of  the  People's  Church,  was  President,  and  Mrs. 
E.  A.  W.  Hoswell  was  Corresponding  Secretary.  With  the  break- 
ing down  of  Dr.  Thomas's  health,  the  activities  of  the  organiza- 
tion practically  ceased.  The  last  meeting  of  the  Society  was 
held  at  Hull  House  some  three  years  ago.  At  that  time  it  was 
voted  to  reorganize  whenever  the  Committee  on  Reorganization, 
which  was  at  that  time  appointed,  should  deem  it  advisable. 


« 

BEALS  231 


The  Second  National  Peace  Congress  was  held  in  Chicago, 
May  3  to  5,  1909,  under  the  auspices  of  the  American  Peace  Soci- 
ety. The  sum  of  nearly  $12,000  was  raised,  all  bills  were  paid  in 
full,  and  a  large  volume  of  the  Proceedings  (containing  524  pages) 
was  published. 

This  Congress  awakened  so  great  an  interest  that  a  special 
meeting  of  the  members  of  the  American  Peace  Society  who  were 
in  attendance  was  called  in  connection  with  the  Congress,  by 
Hon.  Robert  Treat  Paine,  the  distinguished  president  of  the 
American  Peace  Society.  It  was  voted  at  this  meeting  that  it 
was  desirable  to  organize  a  Chicago  branch  and  to  open  an  office. 
The  Directors  of  the  American  Peace  Society,  at  a  meeting  held 
in  Boston  later  in  the  same  month  (May  25,  1909),  voted  to  trans- 
fer the  office  of  the  Field  Secretary  to  Chicago,  and  to  allow  him 
to  act  as  Secretary  of  the  proposed  branch,  provided  one  should 
be  organized  and  adequate  financial  support  guaranteed. 

After  considerable  time  had  been  spent  in  a  careful  canvass 
to  ascertain  what  moral  and  financial  support  could  be  relied  on, 
it  was  decided  that  the  opening  of  an  office  seemed  warranted. 
A  meeting  was  therefore  called,  to  which  were  invited  the  members 
of  the  former  Chicago  Peace  Society,  the  Chicago  members  of 
the  American  Peace  Society,  the  local  delegates  to  the  Second 
National  Peace  Congress  and  other  friends  of  peace.  At  this 
meeting  (held  January  4,  19 10,  as  previously  stated),  organiza- 
tion of  the  Chicago  Peace  Society  was  effected  and  the  earlier 
local  peace  organization,  through  its  Committee  on  Reorganiza- 
tion (Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Chairman)  merged  itself  in  the  new 
local  branch  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

An  oflSce  was  immediately  opened  in  the  Association  Building, 
153  La  Salle  Street.  This  was  occupied  until  April  8,  191 1, 
when  the  Society  moved  its  office  to  the  Stock  Exchange  Build- 
ing, 30  North  La  Salle  Street. 

In  the  sixteen  months  since  the  organization  of  the  Chicago 
Peace  Society  a  membership  of  620  has  been  built  up,  and  about 
$5500  in  cash  collected,  besides  a  few  unpaid  subscriptions  amount- 
ing to  several  hundred  dollars  more.  Each  month  the  Advocate 
of  Peace,  the  organ  of  the  American  Peace  Society,  devotes  a 


232  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

column  to  news  from  the  Chicago  Society  and  the  work  of  the 
Chicago  secretary.  The  Chicago  Society  pays  fifty  cents  per 
capita  to  the  parent  organization,  in  order  that  all  members  of 
the  Chicago  Society  may  receive  the  Advocate  free.  Member- 
ship in  the  Chicago  Peace  Society  carries  with  it  membership  in 
the  American  Peace  Society,  with  right  to  vote  in  the  annual  and 
special  meetings  of  the  parent  organization. 

The  Chicago  Peace  Society  hitherto  has  been  financed  almost 
entirely  by  means  of  membership  fees.  Its  Constitution  provides 
for  six  kinds  of  membership,  namely. 

(i)  Annual  Membership,  $2.00  per  year;  (2)  Adhering  Mem- 
bership, $5.00  per  year;  (3)  Sustaining  Membership,  $10.00  per 
year;  (4)  Contributing  Membership,  $25.00  per  year;  (5)  Life 
Membership,  $100.00  in  one  payment;  (6)  Afl&liating  Organiza- 
tions, $5.00  per  year. 

Afl&liating  Organizations  are  entitled  to  representation  by  two 
delegates  each  in  the  meetings  of  the  society. 

The  affairs  of  the  Society  are  carried  on  by  an  Executive  Com- 
mittee,  which  meets   monthly  at  luncheon. 

One  of  the  first  activities  of  the  Chicago  ofl&ce  was  to  circulate 
the  Proceedings  of  the  last  National  Peace  Congress.  Hundreds 
of  copies  have  been  sent  to  prominent  statesmen,  educators,  and 
peace  workers  all  over  the  world.  Large  cases  were  shipped  to 
Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Lake  Mohonk,  Baltimore,  the 
Chinese  Students'  Conference  at  Northwestern  University,  and 
to  Tokyo,  Japan.  A  postal  card  notice  was  sent  to  a  thousand 
colleges  and  public  libraries,  offering  a  presentation  copy  on  re- 
ceipt of  postage.  Over  three  hundred  responses  were  rceived  from 
state,  college,  and  public  libraries.  By  this  means,  peace  liter- 
ature has  been  placed  within  reach  of  15,000,000  people,  who  can 
have  access  to  this  volume  without  going  outside  the  bounds  of 
their  own  college  or  city. 

The  Chicago  oflSice  is  a  depository  of  literature  for  the  American 
Peace  Society,  and  all  its  publications  are  kept  in  stock.  From 
all  parts  of  the  country  requests  for  literature  are  constantly 
being  received,  to  assist  in  the  preparation  of  papers,  addresses 
and  debates.     Publications  of  the  various  organizations  like  the 


BEALS  233 

Association  for  International  Conciliation,  theMohonk  Conference, 
the  American  School  Peace  League,  the  World  Peace  Foundation, 
the  Maryland  Peace  Society,  the  Japan  Peace  Societies,  the  Amer- 
ican Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of  International  Disputes, 
the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs,  etc.,  are  kept  on  hand.  The  ofl&ce  is 
frequently  consulted  with  reference  to  the  intercollegiate  orator- 
ical contests  and  the  building  of  special  programs  for  the  larger 
clubs,  etc. 

In  the  office  there  is  a  small  but  valuable  working  library.  The 
Secretary  has  loaned  his  own  private  peace  library  for  this  pur- 
pose. Through  the  courtesy  of  the  Netherlands  government 
a  complete  set  of  the  official  records  of  the  First  and  Second  Hague 
Conferences  has  been  received.  Bloch's  great  book,  which  led 
to  the  calling  of  the  First  Hague  Conference,  may  be  found  upon 
the  shelves,  in  the  large  six- volume  French  edition  issued  by  the 
Berne  Bureau,  and  likewise  in  the  abridged  English  and  American 
editions.  A  complete  set  of  the  American  Journal  of  International 
Law  is  another  valuable  reference  work.  The  fourteen  large 
volumes  of  Moore's  International  Arbitrations  and  International 
Law  Digest,  published  by  the  United  States  government,  are  also 
available.  Complete  sets  of  Reports  of  the  Universal  Peace  Con- 
gresses, the  National  Peace  Congresses,  the  Lake  Mohonk  Arbi- 
tration Conferences,  and  other  similar  bodies,  constitute  in  them- 
selves a  valuable  alcove.  All  the  publications  of  the  International 
School  of  Peace  (now  the  World  Peace  Foundation)  are  provided 
also,  both  for  reference  and  for  sale.  Rare  old  peace  literature, 
the  classics  of  the  subject  (like  the  writings  of  Erasmus  and  Gro- 
tius),  biographies  of  the  earlier  and  foremost  peace  workers, 
and  many  volumes  bearing  on  the  general  movement  have  been 
gathered  together,  one  by  one.  The  history  of  diplomacy  is 
represented  in  an  increasing  number  of  volumes.  The  First 
and  Second  Hague  Conferences  are  very  fully  covered  by  mono- 
graphs. The  Northwestern  University  Law  School  has  a  special 
fund  for  the  purchase  of  publications  bearing  on  international 
arbitrations  and  law.  As  the  members  of  the  Peace  Society 
may  have  access  to  this  collection,  which  is  located  in  Chicago, 
the  heavy  expense  of  building  up  a  special  library  is  avoided. 


234  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  principal  peace  publications  of  Europe  are  received  regularly 
by  the  Chicago  office  and  may  be  consulted  at  any  time. 

The  first  president  of  the  present  Chicago  Peace  Society  was 
Hon.  George  E.  Roberts,  now  Director  of  the  Mint.  Upon  his 
removal  to  Washington  the  Chicago  Association  of  Commerce 
joined  with  the  Chicago  Peace  Society  in  tendering  a  farewell 
luncheon.  This  was  a  brilliant  and  important  affair.  Mr.  Al- 
fred L.  Baker  succeeded  Mr.  Roberts.  At  the  annual  meeting 
of  the  Society,  held  January  21,  191 1,  Mr.  Leroy  A.  Goddard  was 
elected  president.  Mr.  Goddard  is  President  of  the  State  Bank 
of  Chicago,  President  of  the  Chicago  Clearing  House,  President 
0^  of  the  Bankers'  Club,  Ex-president  of  the  Union  League  Club, 
etc.,  and  is  a  man  of  many  friendships  and  wide  social  influence. 
The  complete  list  of  officers  for  191 1  is  as  follows: 

President:  Leroy  A.  Goddard,  President  of  State  Bank  of  Chi- 
cago. 
0  Vice  President:  Edward  M.  Skinner,  Former  President  Chicago 

Association  of  Commerce. 

Secretary:  Charles  E.  Beals,  Field  Secretary  of  American  Peace 
Society, 
rv  Treasurer:  Charles   L.    Hutchinson,   Vice   President   of    Corn 

Exchange  National  Bank. 

Auditor:  Maurice  S.  Kuhns,  Secretary  Safeguard  Account 
Company. 

Executive  Committee:  The  first  four  of  the  above  and  the  fol- 
lowing: Miss  Jane  Addams,  Head  Resident  of  Hull  House; 
Richard  C.  Hall,  President  of  Duck  Brand  Company  and  Former 
President  of  Chicago  Association  of  Commerce;  Hon.  Harlow  N. 
Higinbotham,  President  of  World's  Columbian  Exposition; 
Prof.  Charles  Cheney  Hyde,  Northwestern  University  Law  School; 
S.  W.  Lamson,  Lamson  Brothers  and  Company;  Alexander  A. 
McCormick,  Former  President  of  Union  League  Club;  Julius 
Rosenwald,  President  of  Sears,  Roebuck  and  Company;  Albert 
H.  Scherzer,  President  of  the  Scherzer  Rolling  Lift  Bridge  Com- 
pany; Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Attorney  and  Counsellor  at  Law; 
Harry  A.  Wheeler,  Vice  President  of  Union  Trust  Company  and 
President  of  Chicago  Association  of  Commerce. 


BEALS  235 

Past  Presidents:  Hon.  George  E.  Roberts,  Director  of  the  Mint; 
Alfred  L.  Baker,  of  Alfred  L.  Baker  and  Company. 

Honorary  Vice  Presidents:  Hon.  Franklin  MacVeagh,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury;  Hon.  J.  M.  Dickinson,  Secretary  of  War; 
Hon.  Walter  L.  Fisher,  Secretary  of  the  Interior;  Hon.  William 
J,  Calhoun,  United  States  Minister  to  China.;  Hon.  Charles  S. 
Deneen,  Governor  of  Illinois;  Miss  Jane  Addams,  of  Hull  House. 
Bishop  Charles  P.  Anderson,  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  of 
Chicago;  Judge  Edward  Osgood  Brown,  Illinois  Appellate  Court; 
Mrs.  Joseph  T.  Bowen;  E.  J.  Buffington.  President  of  Illinois 
Steel  Company;  Edward  B.  Butler,  President  of  Butler  Brothers; 
Charles  R.  Crane,  ist  Vice  President  of  Crane  Company;  David  R. 
Forgan,  President  of  National  City  Bank;  James  B.  Forgan, 
President  of  First  National  Bank;  President  Abram  W.  Harris, 
Northwestern  University;  Mrs.  Ellen  M.  Henrotin,  Former 
President  of  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs;  Rev.  Emil  G.  Hirsch, 
Minister  of  Sinai  Congregation;  Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones;  Direct- 
or of  Abraham  Lincoln  Centre;  William  V.  Kelley,  President  of 
American  Steel  Foundries;  John  R.  Lindgren,  donor  of  Lindgren 
Peace  Fund;  Bishop  William  F.  McDowell,  a  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  President  John  S.  Nollen,  Lake 
Forest  College;  Jarnes  A.  Patten;  Doctor  Daniel  K.  Pearsons; 
Philanthropist;  Archbishop  James  E.  Quigley,  Roman  Catholic 
Archbishop  of  Chicago;  Julius  Rosenwald,  President  of  Sears, 
Roebuck  and  Company;  Prof.  Graham  Taylor,  Chicago  Commons; 
Towner  K.  Webster,  President  Webster  Manufacturing  Company; 
Mrs.  Ella  Flagg  Young,  Superintendent  of  Schools. 

The  Executive  Committee,  on  November  3,  1910,  voted  to 
invite  the  foreign  consuls  residing  in  Chicago  to  accept  honorary 
membership  in  the  Society.  Practically  all  the  consuls  have 
accepted  this  invitation.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the  Japanese 
Consul,  Hon.  K.  Yamasaki,  several  of  our  officers  and  members 
were  present  on  two  important  occasions,  namely,  at  a  luncheon 
given  to  Baron  Oura,  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Commerce  of 
Japan,  and  at  a  reception  in  honor  of  the  birthday  of  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  Japan. 

Since  the  opening  of  the  Chicago  ofl&ce,  valuable  service  has  been 


236  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

rendered  by  many  of  our  vice  presidents  and  members.  Ad- 
dresses and  lectures  have  been  given  by  Miss  Jane  Addams,  Dr. 
Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Dr.  Hirsch,  Professor  Hyde,  Mr.  Morris, 
Mr.  Higinbotham,  Mr.  Wheeler,  Bishop  Anderson,  President 
NoUen,  Dr.  Stolz,  Dr.  Schanfarber,  Mrs.  Henrotin  and  many 
others.  Dr.  Jones,  on  the  eighteenth  of  May,  Hague  Day,  ad- 
dressed the  Cosmopolitan  Club  of  the  University  of  Chicago. 

Moreover  the  Secretary  has  delivered  addresses  at  the  follow- 
ing colleges:  Lake  Forest  (two),  Adelbert  and  Western  Reserve 
in  Cleveland,  Ohio  (three),  Purdue  University  (Lafayette,  Indi- 
ana), University  of  Wooster  (Wooster,  Ohio),  Greer  College 
(Hoopeston,  Illinois),  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  of  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin (Madison,  Wisconsin),  the  Case  School  of  Applied  Science 
(Cleveland,  Ohio),  Wheaton  College  (Wheaton,  Illinois),  Grin- 
nell  College  (Grinnell,  Iowa),  Garrett  Biblical  Institute  (Evans- 
ton,  111.),  and  the  University  of  North  Dakota  (at  Grand  Forks, 
North  Dakota). 

He  has  also  addressed  the  following  schools:  New  Britain, 
Connecticut  (two),  the  State  Normal  School  in  New  Britain, 
Connecticut,  the  Evening  College  of  the  Chicago  Association 
Institute,  Wooster  Academy  (Wooster,  Ohio),  the  Friends  Acad- 
emy, (Bloomingdale,  Illinois),  Park  Manor  School,  Chicago,  the 
Medill  High  School  of  Chicago,  and  the  Central  High  School, 
of  Buffalo,  New  York. 

Of  his  pulpit  services,  sermons  in  the  following  churches  may 
be  cited:  The  First  Presbyterian  of  Lake  Forest;  the  Plymouth 
Congregational  of  Cleveland,  Ohio;  the  Superior  Avenue  Baptist 
of  Cleveland;  the  Union  Park  Congregational  of  Chicago;  the 
Wethersfield  Congregational  of  Hartford,  Connecticut;  the  Pros- 
pect Congregational  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts;  All  Souls 
Church  of  the  Abraham  Lincoln  Centre,  Chicago;  three  times 
in  the  First  Congregational  of  Evanston;  the  Congregational 
Church  of  Winnetka;  the  Ninth  Presbyterian  of  Chicago;  the 
Church  of  the  Redeemer  of  Chicago;  (several  times);  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  Wooster,  Ohio  (union  meeting);  the  First  Congrega- 
tional of  Madison,  Wisconsin;  the  First  Baptist  of  Oak  Park;  the 
Washington    Park    Congregational    Church,    Chicago;  the  First 


BEALS  237 

Congregational  of  Fargo,  North  Dakota;  the  Universalist  Church, 
Sycamore,  Illinois,  (four  addresses);  the  Second  Congregational 
Church,  Oak  Park,  Illinois;  and  (prayer)  in  the  Sunday  Evening 
Club  service  in  Orchestra  Hall,  Chicago. 

The  Secretary  has  also  addressed  the  following  clubs:  The 
Hamilton  of  Chicago;  the  University,  of  Lake  Forest;  the  Cos- 
mopolitan of  Madison,  Wisconsin;  the  Quadrangle,  of  Cleveland, 
the  Men's  Club  of  the  First  Congregational  Church  of  Evanston; 
the  Fellowship  Club  of  Unity  Church,  Oak  Park;  the  Men's  Club 
of  the  Glen  Ellyn  Congregational  Church;  the  Isaiah  Woman's 
Club;  the  Chicago  Congregational  Club;  the  Chicago  Woman's 
Club  (three  times);  the  Hawkeye  Fellowship  Club  of  Chicago; 
the  Woodlawn  Woman's  Club  of  Chicago;  the  South  Side  Wo- 
man's Club  of  Chicago;  the  Park  Manor  Woman's  Club  of  Chi- 
cago; the  Men's  Club  of  the  Westminster  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Buffalo;  and  the  Men's  Club  of  the  First  Unitarian  Church 
of  Buffalo. 

He  has  in  addition  spoken  on  various  occasions  and  before  the 
following  bodies:  The  Congregational  Ministers'  Meeting  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio;  the  Woman's  Congress  at  the  Tower  Hill  Sum- 
mer Encampment,  Tower  Hill,  Wisconsin;  the  public  lecture 
course  of  Bloomingdale,  Ind.;  the  Buffalo  Chapter  of  the  D.  A. 
R.,  Buffalo,  New  York;  the  Theodore  Parker  Celebration  (three 
addresses),  the  Chicago  Anthropological  Society;  a  banquet  of 
the  Y.  P.  S.  C.  E.  of  the  First  Congregational  Church  of  Evans- 
ton;  the  Ottawa  (Illinois)  Business  Men's  Association's  annual 
banquet;  the  Maxwell  Social  Settlement  of  Chicago;  the  Fellow- 
ship House  of  Chicago;  the  annual  banquet  of  the  Independent 
Religious  Society  of  Chicago;  the  Grand  Lectureship  of  Fargo, 
North  Dakota;  the  Knights  of  Columbus  of  Buffalo;  and  the  Uni- 
ted Trade  and  Labor  Council  of  Buffalo. 

An  important  group  meeting  of  churches  was  held  in  the  South 
Congregational  Church,  Chicago,  on  December  18,  19 10. 

The  Chicago  Congregational  Club  invited  our  society  to  build 
the  program  for  its  November  meeting.  In  like  manner  we  were 
requested  to  provide  for  the  January  11,  191 1,  meeting  of  the 
Chicago  Woman's  Club.  More  and  more  we  are  being  recog- 
nized and  called  on  for  such  service. 


238  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  Secretary  has  been  present  at  the  following  peace  gather- 
ings: The  New  England  Peace  Congress,  in  Hartford  and  New 
Britain,  at  which  he  delivered  an  address  at  the  labor  mass- 
meeting;  the  annual  meeting  of  the  "American  Peace  Society  in 
Hartford,  Connecticut;  the  Mohonk  Arbitration  Conference; 
the  annual  meeting  of  the  Cleveland  Peace  Society,  at  which  he 
delivered  the  address;  a  mass  meeting  in  Milwaukee,  for  the  organ- 
ization of  a  State  Branch,  at  which  Mayor  Seidel  and  the  secretary 
were  the  speakers;  a  meeting  of  the  Peace  Association  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Wooster,  Wooster,  Ohio;  a  luncheon  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  Buffalo  Arbitration  and  Peace  Society;  the  In- 
ternational Congress  held  in  Washington,  D.C.,  under  the  auspi- 
ces of  the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of  Interna- 
tional Disputes;  the  Third  National  Peace  Congress,  Baltimore, 
May  3-5,  191 1.  At  the  coming  Mohonk  Conference  the  Chicago 
Peace  Society  will  be  represented  by  its  President,  Mr.  Leroy  A. 
Goddard,  and  the  secretary. 

Through  the  courtesy  of  the  International  School  of  Peace, 
Chicago  enjoyed  the  presence  of  Rev.  Walter  Walsh,  of  Dundee, 
Scotland,  for  ten  days.  Many  of  the  colleges  and  clubs,  which 
gladly  would  have  extended  a  hearing  to  Mr.  Walsh,  had  closed 
for  the  season.  But  we  kept  our  distinguished  guest  busy  dur- 
ing his  stay.  The  newspapers  interviewed  him  and  accorded 
generous  space  in  their  columns.  The  Executive  Committee  of 
the  Chicago  Peace  Society,  at  a  luncheon  conferred  with  Mr. 
Walsh  as  to  the  peace  situation  in  Great  Britain.  The  City 
Club  held  a  luncheon  in  honor  of  Mr.  Walsh.  Mr.  David  R. 
Forgan,  President  of  the  National  City  Bank,  a  fellow  country- 
man of  Mr.  Walsh,  presided  and  introduced  the  speaker  in  a 
happy  manner.  Mr.  Walsh's  theme  was  "The  Military  Situ- 
ation in  Europe,"  and  his  address  was  printed  in  full  in  the  City 
Club   Bulletin. 

The  First  Congregational  Church  of  Evanston,  through  its 
pastor.  Dr.  McElveen,  and  the  Hyde  Park  Presybterian  Church, 
through  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  A.  Vance,  pastor,  opened  their  pulpits 
to  Mr.  Walsh,  and  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Lake  Forest, 
Rev.  W.  Wray  Boyle,  D.D.,  pastor,  devoted  its  prayer  meeting 


BEALS  239 

to  the  subject  of  international  peace.  The  Congregational  Min- 
isters' Meeting  of  Chicago  set  aside  its  regular  program  in  order 
to  hear  the  visiting  Scotsman,  and  special  postal  card  notices 
were  sent  out  to  all  the  pastors.  "Militarism  and  the  Church's 
Duty"  was  the  theme  presented.  An  animated  and  enthusias- 
tic discussion  followed  the  formal  address,  and  the  parsons  agreed 
that  their  fellow  craftsman  from  beyond  the  sea  was  a  "live  wire." 

The  University  Club  tendered  a  reception  to  Mr.  Walsh,  as  did 
also  the  Housing  Committee  of  the  City  Club.  He  was  likewise 
the  guest  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  Association 
of  Commerce  when  "New  Chicago"  was  discussed.  As  a  member 
of  the  City  Council  of  Dundee,  Mr,  Walsh  heartily  appreciated 
the  plans  for  the  betterment  of  city  life  and  was  enthusiastic  in 
his  praise  of  the  Chicago  plans. 

A  special  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Peace  Society  was  held  at 
Hull  House.  Miss  Addams  presided  in  her  own  inimitable,  gra- 
cious way,  and  Mr.  Walsh  talked  on  "How  the  Movement 
Moves." 

During  Mr.  Walsh's  stay  in  Chicago,  a  meeting  was  held  at 
General  F.  D.  Grant's  headquarters  for  the  purpose  of  organ- 
izing the  Boy  Scouts  of  America.  By  special  invitation  Mr.  Walsh 
attended  and  protested  against  emphasizing  the  military  features 
of  the  movement. 

Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  of  Boston,  a  director  of  the  American 
Peace  Society,  made  a  tour  of  some  of  the  principal  cities  of  the 
country,  giving  her  services  without  charge,  except  traveling 
expenses.  We  were  permitted  to  have  ten  days  of  her  time,  from 
January  7  to  17,  1911.  Mrs.  Mead  spoke  twice  before  the  Chicago 
Woman's  Club.  She  also  addressed  the  Chicago  Normal  School, 
the  Northwestern  University,  Chicago  Theological  Seminary, 
Lake  Forest  College,  Lake  Forest  Academy,  Ferry  Hall  School, 
Rockford  College  and  the  Churches  of  Rev.  Dr.  A.  B.  Francisco 
and  Rabbi  Tobias  Schanfarber. 

The  Chicago  Record-Herald  published  on  Sunday,  February 
26,  a  symposium  entitled  "What  Chicago  Could  Do  With  Some 
of  Her  War  Money."  The  Secretary  wrote  the  introductory 
article,  showing  that  if  the  present  military  and  naval  budget  of 


240  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  United  States  is  maintained  during  the  next  decade,  the  people 
of  Chicago  will  pay  as  Chicago's  part  of  the  national  expenditures, 
$41,000,000  more  for  war  purposes  than  in  the  decade  ending  with 
the  Spanish  War.  This  sum  of  $41,000,000  was  divided  up  into 
four  nearly  equal  parts.  Dr.  Graham  Taylor  showed  how  $10,- 
000,000  could  be  spent  to  advantage  in  Chicago  in  the  next  ten 
years  for  various  civic  improvements  and  social  engineering  pro- 
jects; Mr.  Frank  E.  Wing,  superintendent  of  the  Tuberculosis 
Institute,  told  what  $10,000,000  would  do  in  the  war  against 
disease;  Prof.  C.  H.  Judd  put  $10,000,000  worth  of  improvements 
into  the  educational  system;  the  remaining  $11,000,000  was 
entrusted  to  Walter  D.  Moody,  of  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission, 
to  help  to  realize  a  "Chicago  Beautiful." 

The  Illinois  State  Intercollegiate  Oratorical  Contest  was  held 
at  Northwestern  University  in  the  spring.  Mr.  LaVerne  W. 
.Noyes  provided  the  first  prize  of  $75,  and  one  of  our  beloved 
honorary  vice  presidents,  Hon.  H.  N.  Higinbotham,  donated  the 
second  prize  of  $50. 

Mrs.  Vandelia  Varnum  Thomas,  widow  of  Rev.  Hiram  W. 
Thomas,  D.D.,  the  president  of  the  first  Chicago  Peace  Society, 
has  established  a  World's  Peace  Oration  in  Alfred  University, 
Alfred,  New  York,  and  will  establish  similar  prizes  in  two  other 
colleges  in  the  very  near  future. 

An  interesting  and  important  conference  of  Chinese  students 
was  held  at  Northwestern  University  in  the  last  week  of  August. 
The  conference  represented  the  territory  of  the  mid-west.  One 
hundred  and  twenty  students  registered  in  attendance.  These 
students  are, sent  to  the  United  States  by  the  Chinese  govern- 
ment, the  cost  being  defrayed  out  of  the  indemnity  which  was 
returned  to  China  by  the  United  States  after  the  settlement  of  the 
Boxer  claims.  The  students  are  highly  intelligent  and  exceed- 
ingly interesting.  Within  five  years  most  of  them  will  have  re- 
turned to  their  native  land  to  be  the  leaders  of  the  young  China 
which  is  so  rapidly  forging  to  the  front.  The  Secretary  was  in- 
vited to  address  the  students  at  their  Y.  M.  C.  A.  session  and  did 
so  on  August  30th.  A  case  of  Peace  Congress  Proceedings  was 
shipped  to  the  conference  and  a  copy  presented  to  each  student. 


BEALS  241 

Our  office  obtained  from  the  State  Department  certain  data  for 
the  Chicago  News  and  New  York  World  Almanac.  This  mate- 
rial is  published  in  the  191 1  editions. 

At  a  suggestion  from  our  office,  the  Chicago  Association  of 
Commerce  sent  two  delegates  to  the  Fourth  International  Con- 
gress of  Chambers  of  Commerce  which  was  held  in  London  in  June. 

We  have  cooperated  with  the  other  peace  societies  in  the  move- 
ment for  a  peace  commission.  Congress  has  acted  favorably  in 
this  matter,  and  the  appointment  of  the  members  of  the  com- 
mission is  in  the  hands  of  President  Taft. 

We  have  circulated  copies  of  the  report  of  the  1910  Mohonk 
Conference,  and  of  the  Report  of  the  New  England  Peace  Congress. 
Congressman  Bartholdt  has  furnished  us  several  thousand  copies 
of  an  extract  from  the  Congressional  Record  containing  several 
peace  addresses,  some  of  which  were  delivered  at  the  Chicago 
Peace  Congress.  Most  of  these  have  been  mailed  out  under 
Mr.   Bartholdt's  frank. 

The  Peace  Society  of  the  City  of  New  York  prepared  a  "Bat- 
tleship Circular,"  showing  what  might  be  done  with  the  $12,000,- 
000  which  a  modern  battleship  costs.  We  have  made  free  use 
of  this  and  have  found  it  very  effective. 

Another  pamphlet  which  we  have  distributed  is  one  contain- 
ing an  extract  from  the  report  of  the  Massachusetts  Commission 
on  the  High  Cost  of  Living. 

It  is  pleasing  to  note  that  Dr.  Nightingale,  the  Superintendent 
of  Schools  of  Cook  County,  gave  instructions  to  the  teachers 
of  history  under  him  that  less  time  be  devoted  to  the  description 
of  battles  and  military  strategem,  and  more  time  to  the  causes 
and  results  of  wars. 

It  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  the  great  newspapers  seem  more 
friendly  and  less  skeptical  than  a  year  ago.  Certain  of  our 
Chicago  papers  are  constantly  publishing  editorials  and  articles 
which  cannot  help  making  for  a  new  day  in  world  life.  Such 
papers  are  the  heralds  of  a  new  and  nobler  civilization  and  deserve 
our  heartiest  appreciation. 

The  Chicago  Association  of  Commerce  made  preparations  for 
a  visit  to  Japan  by  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  delegates.  Unfor- 


242  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tunately  an  accident  to  the  ship,  which  had  been  specially  char- 
tered, necessitated  the  giving  up  of  the  original  plan.  Many 
of  the  delegates  went  on  other  ships,  however,  though  the  party 
could  not  go  in  a  body.  Letters  were  sent  to  all  the  delegates, 
giving  them  the  latest  information  about  the  peace  movement 
in  Japan.  Letters  of  introduction  were  also  written  to  many  of 
the  leading  peace  workers  in  the  Orient, 

The  Chicago  office  has  sent  to  the  President,  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  62nd  Congress, 
pamphlets  containing  an  account  of  the  organization  of  the  Amer- 
ican Peace  Society  of  Japan. 

It  has  written  to  one  hundred  of  the  leading  local  clubs  asking 
them  to  place  the  subject  of  international  arbitration  and  peace 
on  their  programs  for  the  coming  year. 

Three  of  the  honorary  vice  presidents  of  the  Chicago  Society 
are  now  members  of  the  President's  Cabinet. 

Our  office  cooperates  in  the  holding  of  the  Intercollegiate 
Oratorical  Contests,  and  is  frequently  called  on  to  furnish  judges. 

The  work  of  the  past  season  culminated  in  the  visit  of  Baron 
d'Estournelles  de  Constant  and  Hon.  William  Jennings  Bryan 
to  our  city  within  the  past  week.  Baron  d'Estournelles  was  the 
guest  of  Mr.  Cyrus  Hall  McCormick  during  his  stay  in  the  city. 
Mr.  McCormick  tendered  our  distinguished  guest  a  luncheon  at 
The  Blackstone  on  Saturday,  noon,  April  29,  which  was  attended 
by  the  leading  business  men  of  the  city.  In  the  evening  the 
Chicago  Peace  Society  gave  a  dinner  to  Baron  de  Constant, 
Mr.  Bryan  and  Hon.  George  E.  Roberts  in  the  Gold  Room  of  the 
Congress  Hotel.  The  Sunday  Evening  Club  gave  the  Baron  a 
great  audience  at  its  service  in  Orchestra  Hall.  Monday  noon 
the  distinguished  French  pacifist  was  the  guest  at  a  luncheon  at 
the  University  of  Chicago,  and  in  the  afternoon  he  addressed 
a  great  meeting  of  the  faculty  and  students  of  the  same 
institution. 

In  view  of  the  rapid  progress  of  the  peace  cause  during  the 
last  year,  it  is  easy  to  believe  that  we  are  just  on  the  eve  of  finish- 
ing what  Mr.  Asquith  calls  "the  greatest  of  all  reforms."  In 
a  very  few  years  we  shall  see  the  consummation  of  the  greatest 


SMILEY  243 

reform  which  ever  has  been  effected  in  all  history.  No  other  o 
generation  of  the  children  of  men  ever  has  witnessed  what  we  are 
permitted  to  witness  in  our  day  and  generation.  We  are  far  enough 
along  to  see  that  the  substitution  of  courts  for  camps,  of  law  for 
war,  will  go  down  in  history  as  one  of  the  great  achievements  of 
the  twentieth  century,  yes,  as  the  greatest  achievement  of  all  the 
centuries  hitherto.  Chicago  wishes  to  do  her  part  in  the  move- 
ment, and  proposes  to  have  her  society  well  up  towards  the  head 
of  the  marching  column  of  peace  battalions  of  the  various  cities 
and  countries,  as  they  move  forward  for  their  last  campaign  in 
the  war  against  war. 

Chairman  Burton:  You  all  know  of  the  Lake  Mohonk 
Conference  on  International  Arbitration,  and  I  know  you  will 
be  pleased  to  hear  from  Mr.  Daniel  Smiley. 

THE  LAKE  MOHONK  CONFERENCE  ON  INTERNATIONAL 

ARBITRATION 

DANIEL    SMILEY 

The  first  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbitration 
was  held  sixteen  years  ago.  There  was  then  apparently  little 
popular  interest  in  urging  on  the  world's  peace.  A  wonderful 
gathering  like  this  for  such  an  exalted  purpose  would  then,  I 
believe,  have  been  impossible.  Then  a  treaty  for  permanent  peace 
by  judicial  adjustment  between  two  great  nations  was  considered — 
if  considered  at  all — a  dream  too  unsubstantial  to  seriously  ad- 
vocate. It  is  not  easy  for  any  of  us  to  realize  the  great  change 
which  our  country  has  met  with  and  which  this  notable  and  splen- 
did Congress  assures  us  is  an  accomplished  fact.  Sixteen  years 
ago  it  was  with  much  labor  that  fifty  persons  could  be  induced 
to  attend  the  first  Mohonk  Conference.  After  seven  years  the 
attendance  was  limited  only  by  the  number  which  could  be  enter- 
tained, and  it  was  necessary  to  open  a  conference  oflSce  with  a 
permanent  secretary. 

In  establishing  the  Conference  my  brother  had  in  mind  three 
points: 


244  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

First,  that  most  thinking  men  already  appreciated  the  horrors 
of  war,  and  the  desirability  of  avoiding  it. 

Second,  that  any  movement  looking  toward  the  world's  peace 
should  be  discussed  on  an  international  rather  than  a  national 
basis,  and 

Third,  some  sort  of  arbitral  settlement,  or,  in  the  primitive  New 
England  phrase,  "Leaving  it  out  to  men"  was  the  simple  Quaker 
method  between  individuals  of  avoiding  quarrels  and  litigation. 
With  adaptations  it  seemed  applicable  between  nations. 

Taking  this  much  for  granted,  the  question  was  one  of  method. 
It  was  quickly  proved  that  on  this  ground  practically  all  patriotic 
and  earnest  men  could  join  in  harmonious  and  profitable  discus- 
sion to  an  extent  which  had  not  been  possible  before  on  any  other 
basis  for  promoting  peace. 

To  men  in  all  walks  of  life  these  propositions  began  to  seem 
reasonable.  We  have  held  in  all  honor  those  whose  duties  led 
them  into  the  practice  of  that  very  profession  which  we  hope  to 
render  largely  unnecessary.  From  a  great  company  of  men  in 
the  army  and  navy  the  work  of  our  Conference  has  had  most 
loyal  and  wide  aid. 

From  those  who  make,  as  well  as  from  those  who  interpret, 
our  laws  there  has  come  advice  which  experience  in  public  affairs 
has  made  particularly  practical. 

Those  who  represent  this  nation  abroad  no  less  than  the  dis- 
tinguished representatives  of  other  countries  also  seem  to  have 
found  no  bar  to  joining  on  the  common  ground  selected. 

To  business  men,  also,  in  large  numbers  it  particularly  appealed 
— possibly  because  the  methods  proposed  were  on  similar  lines 
with  usages  to  which  they  were  long  ago  accustomed. 

Almost  from  the  first,  leaders  of  the  conferences,  particularly 
Edward  Everett  Hale,  looked  beyond  simple  arbitration  to  a  real 
international  court  of  justice — such  a  court  as  our  government 
is  now  earnestly  seeking  to  put  into  being — and  some  of  the  early 
platforms  advocated  policies  not  unlike  those  that  have  later  given 
the  United  States  its  leading  position  in  the  peace  movement. 

As  years  passed  the  representative  character  of  its  meetings, 
the  opportunity  it  afforded  for  men  of  widely  varying  views  to 


SMILEY  245 

agree  on  many  of  the  topics  discussed,  have  made  it  possible 
for  the  Conference  to  substantially  settle  some  questions  and,  in 
its  printed  report,  to  give  out  its  conclusions  in  such  form  as  to  be 
widely  accepted,  for  it  has  been  from  the  first  well  understood  that 
the  published  platform  contains  only  matter  to  which  there  is  jocp^ 
a  substantially  unanimous  consent.  It  has  been  the  care  of  our 
Conference  to  make  the  annual  platform  a  feody  of  decisions  rep- 
resenting the  best  thought  of  those  who  have  considered  the  vari- 
ous questions  with  care  and  earnestness,  and  that  too,  if  possible, 
without   professional,   class   or   personal   bias. 

Our  purposes  have  been  materially  forwarded  by  a  large  and 
increasing  body  of  correspondents  of  all  classes  and  countries, 
and  by  nearly  two  hundred  leading  chambers  of  commerce  and 
boards  of  trade  in  the  largest  cities  of  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada, including  many  bodies  of  national  scope.  These  corre- 
spondents and  business  organizations  are  officially  associated  with 
the  Conference  and  have  a  large  and  much  appreciated  part  in  its 
work. 

The  Conference  has  never  considered  itself  adapted  for  general 
propaganda.  Hence  about  the  only  line  it  has  undertaken  has 
been  among  the  colleges,  which  field  it  entered  in  1905  only  be- 
cause a  large  part  of  it  was  then  totally  neglected.  The  results 
of  five  years  have  been  gratifying,  and  we  are  now  glad  that  with 
the  recent  advances  in  the  peace  movement,  other  and  better 
equipped  agencies  will  doubtless  carry  on  more  effectively  the 
work  which  our  limitations  have  only  permitted  us  to  begin. 

The  Conference  has  recently  been  drawn  into  a  service  it  had 
not  contemplated  but  gladly  assumed — that  of  promoting  co- 
operation among  the  leading  American  peace  societies.  The  Mo- 
honk  meetings  have  been  occasions  for  friendly  exchange  of  views 
by  the  officers  of  the  societies,  and  for  two  years  a  special  committee 
of  the  Conference  has  been  working  on  a  plan  for  a  national 
arbitration  and  peace  council  through  which  the  societies  may  ^ 
cooperate  in  a  business-like  manner,  I  am  especially  glad  that 
such  a  council  is  sure  of  early  establishment  and  I  hope  this  Con- 
gress, itself  an  example  of  cooperation,  will  give  the  new  council 
the  stamp  of  its  approval. 


246  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

A  backward  glance  at  the  Mohonk  Conference  indicates  that 
one  of  its  largest  services  has  lain  in  giving  initial  impulse  to  new 
undertakings.  One  of  its  early  meetings  led  to  significant  action 
by  a  committee  of  the  New  York  Bar  Association  in  drafting  an 
almost  prophetic  plan  for  an  international  court  which  attracted 
wide  attention  in  personal  and  official  circles.  The  American 
Society  of  International  Law  was  launched  at  a  Mohonk  con- 
ference with  our  hearty  endorsement.  Some  other  societies 
have  been  kind  enough  to  credit  Mohonk  with  inspiration;  and 
it  is  needless  to  say  it  has  given  us  special  pleasure  to  have  a  part 
in  bringing  about  the  national  council  of  which  I  have  just  spoken. 

Finally,  will  you  indulge  me  in  taking  the  time  to  express  the 
personal  delight  which  it  gives  me  to  realize  that  this  work  is 
no  longer  left  to  individual  effort  or  to  that  of  local  societies; 
but  that  now  in  this  great  and  singularly  attractive  City  of  Bal- 
timore whose  hospitality  and  friendliness  are  so  good  to  experi- 
ence a  Third  National  Congress  can  be  held  under  such  favoring 
auspices  and  with  the  sure  promise  of  most  beneficent  results. 

Chairman  Burton:  There  are  other  speakers  on  the  program, 
but  in  view  of  the  lateness  of  the  hour  and  the  fact  that  the  Amer- 
ican Peace  Congress  holds  its  session  after  our  adjournment,  they 
have  begged  to  be  excused.     That  brings  this  session  to  a  close. 

ADJOURNED 


/ 


FIFTH  SESSION 

Thursday  Evening,  May  4,  at  Eight  O'clock 
Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.D.,  Presiding  Officer 

Chairman  Abbott:  A  criminal  judge  in  England  was  once 
asked  how  long  a  sermon  ought  to  be.  He  replied  ''Twenty 
minutes,  with  a  leaning  to  mercy."  I  suggest  that  anecdote  as 
a  hint  to  myself  and  to  the  speakers  who  are  to  follow  me.  If  we 
eight  speakers  can  each  of  us  keep  within  twenty  minutes  we  shall 
keep  you  here,  I  calculate,  just  two  hours,  and  that  ought  to  be 
enough  to  satisfy  the  most  hungry  for  eloquence  and  perhaps  not 
too  much  to  weary  the  patience  of  those  who  are  not  so  hungry. 

There  are  two  objects  which  I  take  it  we  have  in  this  Peace 
Congress:  One  is  to  create  public  opinion  in  favor  of  peace; 
the  other  is  to  define  and  formulate  our  own  convictions  on 
the  subject.  As  I  have  been  attending  the  deliberations  of 
this  Congress  and  of  previous  conventions  of  this  kind,  I  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  are  as  many  creeds  of  peace  in 
a  peace  congress  as  there  are  creeds  of  religion  in  a  congress  of 
religion.  It  is  better  so.  It  is  well  that  we  should  interchange 
our  various  views  in  order  that  by  that  interchange  we  may  more 
clearly  understand  what  is  to  be  the  ultimate  conclusion  of  all 
those  who  look  for  peace  as  a  final  ideal.  I  think,  as  those  in  a 
religious  congress  are  all  agreed,  that  faith,  hope  and  love  are  the 
essence  of  religion,  but  are  disagreed  as  to  how  religion  is  to  be 
promoted  and  expressed,  so  we  here  are  all  in  favor  of  peace  as 
an  ultimate  end,  while  we  differ  in  the  steps  that  are  to  be  taken 
and  the  order  in  which  they  are  to  be  taken. 

I  have  thought  that  I  could  do  nothing  better  than  to  tell  you 
tonight,  as  clearly  and  as  simply  as  possible,  what  is  my  own  creed, 
although  I  am  sure  it  will  differ  in  some  radical  aspects  from  the 
creed  of  others  among  you. 

247 


248  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

I  do  not  believe  that  war  is  always  wrong.  I  do  not  believe 
that  war  is  what  it  was  defined  last  night  to  be,  "collective  mur- 
der." To  believe  that  war  is  collective  murder  would  necessarily 
involve  the  belief  that  William  of  Orange  and  Cromwell  and  Gar- 
ibaldi and  Washington  and  Grant  and  Lee  were  the  leaders  of 
murderers  and  themselves  murderers,  who  were  entitled  to  be 
placed  by  the  history  of  the  world  upon  the  scaffold.  And  there 
is  no  one  who  believes  that.  War  is  not  collective  murder.  It 
is  collective  homicide,  but  homicide  is  sometimes  justifiable  and 
war  is  sometimes  justifiable.  Nor  is  it  true  that  if  we  could  abol- 
ish war  we  should  abolish  all  the  cruelties  and  all  the  barbarities 
that  come  from  the  use  of  physical  force  by  wrath  and  bitterness. 
The  contrary  is  true.  If  peace  has  its  victories  no  less  than  war; 
peace  has  its  barbarities  and  cruelties  no  less  than  war.  There 
were  more  men,  women  and  children  killed  in  the  massacres  in 
Turkey  at  a  time  when  Turkey  was  absolutely  at  peace  with  the 
rest  of  the  world,  than  were  killed  in  the  Crimean  War.  There 
were  more  men,  women  and  children  killed  in  the  Pekin  rebellion 
probably  than  in  the  whole  Russo-Japanese  War,  and  at  the  time 
of  the  Pekin  rebellion,  China  was  not  at  war.  No  one  knows 
how  many  Jews  have  been  killed  in  Russia  when  she  was  not  at 
war,  but  we  know  that  those  massacres  were  perpetrated  and 
enacted  with  cruelties  and  horrors  far  worse  than  any  that 
were  perpetrated  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War.  War  does  not 
put  an  end  to  the  barbarities  and  to  the  use  of  phyical  force. 

These  two  things  let  us  remember.  What  we  are  seeking  here, 
I  think — certainly  what  I  desire — is  not  merely  peace,  but  peace 
founded  on  righteousness,  peace  accompanying  justice,  peace 
with  law  and  order  as  its  components.  What  we  are  seeking  is, 
first,  justice  and  next  peace.  "If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lies 
in  you,"  says  the  Apostle,  "live  peaceably  with  all  men."  What 
we  are  seeking  in  this  Congress  is  to  find  out  how  far  it  is  possible 
for  us  to  live  in  peace  with  all  men,  how  far  it  lies  within  us  to 
bring  about  that  beneficent  result. 

For  this  reason  disarmament  must  follow  peace,  not  precede 
and  prepare  for  it.  Disarmament  is  the  result  and  peace  is  the 
cause,   not  disarmament   the   cause   and  peace  the   result.     To 


ABBOTT  249 

take  the  arms  away  from  those  who  are  under  control  and  leave 
them  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  not  under  control,  to  take 
them  away  from  the  police  and  put  them  in  the  hands  of  the 
blackhanders,  is  not  the  way  to  peace.  To  take  away  arma- 
ments from  those  nations  that  know  how  to  use  them  and  to 
leave  them  in  the  hands  of  those  nations  that  do  not  know 
the  power  of  self-restraint,  that  are  without  the  self-control  that 
is  necessary  to  an  armed  nation,  is  not  the  pathway  to  interna- 
tional peace.  To  take  arms  away  from  the  highest,  the  best  and 
the  most  cultured  nations  and  leave  them  in  the  hands  of  the  least 
cultured  is  not  to  prepare  for  the  Kindgom  of  God.  "The  King- 
dom of  God" — I  quote  again  from  that  old  writer,  Paul — and  I 
don't  know  how  far  you  regard  him  as  an  authority,  but  he  is  at 
least  a  favorite  author  with  me — "the  Kingdom  of  God  is  right- 
eousness and  peace  and  joy  and  holiness  of  spirit."  There  is  no 
peace  not  founded  on  goodwill,  and  also  there  is  no  goodwill  not 
founded  on  righteousness.  Righteousness  first,  peace  next, 
universal  welfare  last  of  all. 

So  neither  do  I  think  that  arbitration  is  the  panacea  that  will 
cure  the  world  of  its  woes  and  put  an  end  to  all  war.  Many  wise 
things  have  been  said  at  this  conference,  and  some  otherwise. 
None  wiser,  however,  than  Mr.  Taft's  statement  at  the  opening 
of  the  Conference,  that  we  must  not  expect  that  peace  would 
instantly  follow  after  arbitration.  Arbitration  was  well-defined, 
if  I  remember  right,  by  Mr.  Holt,  who  said  that  it  was  substitut- 
ing the  appeal  to  reason  for  the  appeal  to  force,  and  when- 
ever that  substitution  can  be  made,  it  must  be  made.  But, 
if  there  is  no  reason  you  cannot  appeal  to  it.  You  cannot  appeal 
to  reason  when  facing  a  pack  of  wolves.  When  dynamiters  blow 
up  our  railroads  and  homes,  you  cannot  appeal  to  reason,  because 
they  haven't  got  it.  You  organize  the  court  not  to  find  out 
whether  it  is  reasonable  to  blow  up  houses  and  bridges,  but  to  find 
out  if  it  was  done.  When  marauding  bands  assail  private  persons 
in  Turkey  and  the  government  stands  by  and  looks  on  without 
doing  anything,  then  there  is  no  reason  there  to  appeal  to.  When 
the  Armenian  massacres  were  going  on  if  one  nation  had  brought 
a  man-of-war  up  the  Dardenelles  and  told  them  that  the  massacres 


250  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

must  stop,  they  would  have  stopped,  and  it  would  have  been  the 
threatening  of  war  that  would  have  stopped  them.  For  one 
hundred  years  appeal  was  made  to  Spain  by  the  United  States  in 
behalf  of  Cuba,  and  made  in  vain.  At  least  forbearance  ceased  to 
be  a  virtue.  After  from  one-quarter  to  one-third  of  Cuba's  citizens 
had  been  killed,  some  by  secret  assassination,  some  by  assault, 
some  by  starvation,  then  this  country,  having  for  one  hundred 
years  appealed  and  appealed  in  vain,  appealed  by  the  guns  of 
Sampson's  fleet  and  Cuba  was  made  free. 

What  we  claim — what  I  claim — is  this:  First,  certain  great 
causes  of  war  have  ceased  to  operate.  One  of  the  great  causes 
was  religious  animosity.  When  the  crescent  entered  Europe 
and  thundered  at  the  gates  of  Vienna,  Vienna  could  not  submit 
to  arbitration  the  question  of  whether  the  cross  should  bow  to  the 
crescent.  When  the  Duke  of  Alba  ran  the  plowshare  of  war  through 
the  Netherlands,  the  Duke  of  Orange  could  not  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion whether  the  Netherlands  should  submit  to  Spain.  I  hope 
there  is  not  one  of  us  here  who  would  not  fight  to  the  death  to 
prevent  his  own  religious  faith  from  being  taken  from  him  and 
his  family  and  children.  I  am  sure  there  is  not  one  here  who 
would  raise  a  finger  to  enforce  his  religious  faith  on  another. 
The  peril  of  religious  wars  is  gone  forever  from  Christendom. 
Other  wars  have  gone.  Julius  Caesar  ran  his  legions  over  Gaul 
to  take  Gaul  for  the  benefit  of  the  Roman  Empire.  No  Julius 
Caesar  will  do  that  again.  I  have  read  an  article  stating  that 
Germany  could  put  four  hundred  thousand  troops  on  our  Atlantic 
Coast,  and  Japan  on  our  Pacific  Coast,  if  we  did  not  have  an  army 
and  navy  to  keep  them  from  doing  it.  But  they  won't  do  it. 
We  have  found  that  we  can  do  more  with  people  by  trading  with 
them  than  by  conquering  them  and  taxing  them.  Napoleon 
went  to  Italy  and  conquered  Italy  and  robbed  Italy  of  her  art 
treasures.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  went  to  Italy,  after  those  treas- 
ures had  been  regained  by  Italy,  and  he  bought  those  art 
treasures,  and  it  did  not  cost  him  one-tenth  of  what  it  cost 
Napoleon  to  rob  Italy  of  them. 

It  is  said  that  when  the  rivalry  of  nations  brings  them  in  con- 
tact then  war  ensues.     We  assert  that  for  years  three  thousand 


ABBOTT 


251 


miles  of  border  land  have  been  left  open  and  unprotected.  Dur- 
ing all  that  time  England  and  America  have  been  competing 
throughout  the  world.  Canada  and  America  come  in  competition 
with  railroads  across  the  continent.  There  has  been  bitter  and 
hot  competition  between  that  country  and  this  Republic,  and 
when  we  take  the  great  step  suggested  by  the  President,  when 
this  reciprocity  treaty  goes  into  effect  we  hope — I  do —  that  these 
two  great  countries  will  clasp  hands  in  a  freer  and  a  more  generous 
trade  than  they  have  known  in  times  past.  What  he  proposed 
that  we  say  to  Great  Britain,  if  I  interpret  it  right,  is  this:  We 
will  arbitrate  all  questions  with  you,  including  questions  of  honor 
and  independence  and  of  vital  interest.  We  know  you.  You 
would  not,  if  you  could,  put  a  slur  upon  our  honor.  You  would 
not,  if  you  could,  interfere  with  our  independence.  You 
would  not,  if  you  could,  disturb  our  vital  interests.  And  we 
have  no  purpose  to  put  a  blot  upon  your  honor,  or  blight  your 
interests,  or  interfere  with  your  independence.  We  trust  you. 
Will  you  trust  us,  and  in  that  mutual  trust  and  confidence  leave 
all  questions  that  can  arise  between  us  to  a  court  of  arbitration? 
There  is  not  one  of  us  here  tonight  who  would  vote  to  arbi- 
trate our  independence.  If  Great  Britain  said  a  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago,  "You  are  our  colonies  and  you  must  return 
and  be  our  colonies  again,"  we  would  not  leave  that  to  a 
Hague  Tribunal.  But  it  is  preposterous  to  think  that  England 
would  propose  such  a  thing,  and  therefore  it  is  preposterous  to 
guard  against  it.  We  say  to  Great  Britain,  "We  trust  you,  and 
we  leave  all  questions  that  can  arise  between  us  to  a  judicial  tri- 
bunal." And  when  our  country  has  really  said  that — when 
the  Senate — for  the  people  of  the  nation  have  already  said,  excuse 
the  Methodist  figure,  "Amen,"  to  the  President's  address — I  say 
when  the  United  States  Senate,  after  greater  deliberation,  says, 
"Amen,"  also,  we  know  that  Great  Britain  will  make  a  like  re- 
sponse. And  when  we  two  nations  have  done  that,  then  we  may 
well  turn  to  the  other  nations  of  the  globe,  certainly  to  the  other 
nations  of  Christendom  and  say  "This  is  our  estimate  of  modern 
civilization.  Great  Britain  and  America  are  sufficiently  civil- 
ized to  believe  that  they  can  trust  each  other  with  all  questions 


252  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  vital  interest  and  honor  and  independence.  Whenever  you 
are  sufficiently  civilized  to  take  the  same  stand  and  repose  in  us 
the  same  trust,  we  shall  like  to  make  the  same  agreement  with 
you. 

I  was  asked  today  by  a  newspaper  reporter  whether  I  thought 
Japan  would  enter  into  such  an  agreement.  I  told  him  I  did  not 
know.  He  asked  me  whether  I  thought  the  people  of  the  United 
States  would  be  willing  to  enter  into  such  an  agreement,  and  I 
told  him  again  I  did  not  know.  I  am  not  speaking  for  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  But  I  will  say  for  myself  that  if  Japan,  in 
the  spirit  of  Great  Britain  and  in  the  spirit  of  the  United  States 
would  agree  to  recognize  the  integrity  of  our  country,  to  recog- 
nize our  independence,  to  recognize  our  national  honor  and  to  rec- 
ognize our  vital  interests,  and  we  would  agree  to  do  the  same  with 
Japan,  and  based  on  that  agreement  she  would  agree  to  leave  all 
questions  that  might  arise  between  us  in  the  future  to  arbitration, 
I  would  say  that  we  would  say,  "Do  it  by  all  means,"  and  I 
believe  we  would  have  a  better  protection  for  the  Philippines  and 
the  Hawaiians  and  our  own  coast  than  we  could  ever  get  by  army 
or  by  navy. 

That  is  my  creed.  I  got  it  into  twenty-two  minutes,  and  I 
am  going  away  tomorrow  morning  and  leave  it  to  be  riddled  by 
those  who  do  not  agree  with  me,  in  the  subsequent  sessions  of  this 
Congress. 

"  The  Why,  When  and  How  of  Disarmament."  If  Dr.  Warfield 
can  tell  us  why  armaments  should  cost  us  so  much  and  why  they 
should  be  abolished,  and  how  we  can  bring  that  abolition  about, 
we  shall  all  be  delighted.  I  have  the  honor  of  introducing  Dr. 
E.  D.  Warfield,  President  of  Lafayette  College. 

REDUCTION  OF  ARMAMENTS;  WHY,  WHEN,  HOW? 

ETHELBERT  D.    WARFIELD,   DD.,   LL.D. 

Emerson  has  strikingly  said:  ''Every  reform  was  once  a  pri- 
vate opinion".  .  .  .  "Every  revolution  was  first  a  thought 
in  one  man's  mind;  and  when  the  same  thought  occurs  to  another 


WARFIELD  253 

man,  it  is  the  key  to  that  era."  Judged  by  this  statement  the 
movement  for  peace  and  arbitration  must  have  in  it  a  great 
political  possibility.  But  like  so  many  of  Emerson's  phrases  this 
looks  upon  only  one  side  of  human  history.  Every  reform,  every 
revolution,  was  indeed  once  a  private  opinion,  and  remains  for 
us  a  thought  embodied,  a  dream  come  true.  But  there  have  been 
many  opinions,  many  dreams,  that  wailed  out  their  wan  lives  in 
the  vain  quest  for  bodies  in  which  they  might  be  made  flesh. 
And  the  question  for  us  today  is  this.  Is  the  idea  of  reduction 
of  armaments  only  a  pious  opinion,  or  is  it  a  resolute  purpose? 
Is  it  merely  a  dream  or  is  it  a  determined  program  of  action? 

The  mind  of  contemporary  thinkers  has  felt  the  drift  of  our  age 
towards  philosophical  uncertainty,  and  has  sought  in  pragmatism 
to  regain  for  conduct  its  just  place  in  all  human  thinking.  The 
will  to  do  is  being  valued  to  us  at  its  true  worth.  A  civilization 
rich  in  bloom,  heavy  with  the  odors  of  a  too  languid  love  of  beauty 
and  ease,  must  be  stimulated  to  test  all  truth  by  action.  And  no 
contemporary  movements  are  more  criticised  for  the  dispropor- 
tion between  their  ideals  and  their  deeds  than  those  represented  in 
this  great  gathering. 

Of  all  the  subjects  under  discussion,  the  man  who  calls  himself 
practical  thinks  this  of  the  reduction  of  armaments  the  most 
impractical.  I  dare  to  believe  the  very  contrary  is  true.  It 
presents  the  problem  of  a  situation  that  every  one  will  admit  to 
be  a  crime  against  society,  to  which  no  one  has  the  courage  to 
ap'ply  the  key.  The  man  for  the  hour,  that  and  that  only  is 
needed.  A  statesman  of  large  views  with  a  strong  nation  behind 
him,  possessed  of  the  courage  and  capacity  of  leadership,  such  is 
the  need  of  the  hour.  Is  it  the  old  receipt  for  roast  hare;  first 
catch  your  hare?     Let  us  at  least  see  what  the  situation  really  is. 

WHY  SHOULD  THERE  BE  A  REDUCTION  OF  ARMAMENTS? 

Let  US  take  the  pressing  practical  argument  first.  There  should 
be  a  reduction  of  armaments  because  the  burden  of  armed  peace 
is — not  merely  is  becoming — intolerable  to  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  great  powers,  and  oppressive  to  every  nation  of  any 


254  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

weight  in  the  world's  councils.  The  time  does  not  permit  me  to 
dwell  upon  the  details  which  are  familiar  to  this  audience.  The 
terrible  cost  in  money,  in  taxes  wrung  from  peoples  already  op- 
pressed by  the  unpaid  cost  of  the  wars  of  earlier  generations, 
is  known  in  every  ministry  of  Europe.  Far  more  vivid  is  the 
knowledge  of  this  cost  in  the  boards  of  industrial  corporations. 
But  only  the  workingman  and  his  household  appreciates  with 
due  poignancy  the  price  of  national  pride  and  international  sus- 
picion. 

If  this  burden  were  necessary  it  were  the  part  of  patriotism  to 
bear  it  with  a  cheerful  spirit.  But  if  it  is  only  the  child  of  national 
vain-glory,  the  creature  of  ministerial  illusion,  the  invention  of 
vampires  who  suck  the  blood  of  nations  to  enrich  themselves,  not 
only  patriotism,  but  a  higher  passion  for  mankind  demands  that 
this  burden  be  lifted  from  the  shoulders  of  men. 

There  was  a  time  when  our  ancestors  dwelling  in  the  forest 
depths  along  the  Rhine,  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser  saw  amid  the 
shadows  of  the  forests  the  fearful  shapes  of  were-wolves  and  other 
creatures  of  their  imaginations  which  filled  their  days  with  tremors 
and  their  nights  with  dread.  An  unhappy  atavism  seems  to  op- 
press the  imagination  of  some  of  their  descendants  with  uncouth 
survivals  of  ancestral  fears  so  that  they  see  in  all  other  nations 

Brutes  that  wear  our  form  and  face, 
The  were-wolves  of  the  human  race. 

But  this  burden  of  taxation  is  not  the  highest  price  that  is  paid 
for  armed  peace.  The  burden  of  a  manhood  tribute — three  years 
of  a  strong  man's  life  in  some  countries — and  the  ever  growing 
threat  of  the  spread  of  this  plague,  is  not  to  be  reckoned  little. 
I  need  not  press  this  point  in  this  land  so  accustomed  to  liberty, 
so  nobly  schooled  in  the  precious  freedom,  not  merely  from  govern- 
mental dictation,  but  for  a  self  determining  manhood.  And  to 
all  those  whose  minds  have  risen  to  the  conception  of  a  world- 
wide fellowship  in  the  arts  of  civilization  and  the  aspirations  of 
religion,  nothing  could  be  more  hateful  than  the  attitude  of  inter- 
national suspicion  and  distrust  which  is  represented  by  these 
bu'rdensome  preparations  for  a  war  which  seems  ever  at  the  gates. 


WARFIELD  255 

And  it  is  not  capable  of  any  kind  of  proof  that  these  armaments 
have  prevented  war,  or  placated  opinion.  On  the  contrary  it 
is  easy  to  show  that  they  have  bred  distrust  and  even  precipitated 
war.  And  even  on  the  commercial  side  the  lack  of  confidence  in 
them  as  merely  defensive  is  shown  in  the  lower  price  and  greater 
fluctuation  of  the  public  securities  of  the  nations  armed  to  the  teeth 
as  compared  with  those  which  are  practically  without  armaments. 
Compare  for  example,  Belgian  3  per  cent  at  96  with  German  at 
82;  and  Norwegian  3^  per  cent  at  102  and  Russian  at  81. 

The  education  of  the  age  in  a  gospel  of  force  instead  of  one  of 
justice  is  also  to  be  counted  against  this  delusion.  Not  only  is 
this  a  peril  to  every  people  ("He  that  taketh  the  sword  shall 
perish  by  the  sword"  was  not  written  in  vain),  but  new  nations 
are  going  to  school  to  the  old.  Has  not  Japan  proved  an  apt 
scholar?  Let  Russia  answer.  Had  the  great  western  powers 
preached  to  Japan  from  the  same  texts  as  their  scholars  and  mis- 
sionaries used,  would  American  jingoes  ride  the  same  nightmares 
they  bestride  today?  Surely  in  every  sin  is  sowed  the  seed  of  its 
own  punishment. 

WHEN? 

But  when?     When  shall  reduction  of  armament  be  realized? 

No  law  should  be  written  on  the  statute  books  until  it  has  first 
been  written  on  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

But  who  are  the  people?  I  once  heard  Mr.  Bryce  say  under 
very  impressive  circumstances,  that  few  realize  what  a  very  small 
body  of  men  really  govern  every  country.  Nothing  could  be 
more  true  than  this.  An  efficient  majority  is  not  necessarily 
a  numerical  majority.  Those  who  are  wise  after  the  event  arc 
forever  pointing  out  that  the  great  revolutions,  the  Reformation 
in  England  and  the  American  Revolution  for  example,  have  been 
the  work,  not  the  of  many,  but  of  the  determined.  The  men  of 
force,  the  men  of  leadership,  in  any  time  of  progressive  movement 
bear  other  men  and  measures  forward  by  sheer  force  of  will. 

But  great  movements  begin  with  discussion,  with  the  education 
of  the  mind  and  the  conscience.  Then  they  are  felt  to  be  "in  the 
air."     An  intellectual  and  moral  contagion  is  felt.     What  was  a 


256  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

private  conviction  becomes  public  opinion.  What  was  depend- 
ent upon  individual  initiative,  begins  to  move  in  the  pulses  of  the 
body  politic.  Then  it  is  that  there  must  be  found  men  of  courage 
and  unselfish  devotion  who  are  ready  to  risk  their  careers  for 
national  well  being. 

The  great  work  of  educating  the  people  in  the  significance  of 
arbitration  and  kindred  methods  of  replacing  international  con- 
flicts by  international  justice,  has  been  carried  on  with  amazing 
success  during  the  past  decade.  The  dead  weight  of  public 
indifference  has  been  overcome  and  a  progressive  impulse  has  been 
imparted  to  contemporary  opinion.  The  time  has  come  for 
decisive  action. 

When  Gladstone  upon  mature  and  conscientious  reflection 
resolved  to  throw  aside  his  strongly  intrenched  prejudices  and 
recommend  the  submission  of  the  Alabama  claims  to  arbitration, 
he  not  only  astounded  the  world, — he  advanced  the  world's  civil- 
ization by  a  century's  mark. 

When  Roosevelt  flung  precedent  to  the  winds  and  gripped 
with  a  brave  man's  iron  grasp  a  great  opportunity,  he  not  only 
made  peace  between  Russia  and  Japan,  but  he  showed  how  prog- 
ress is  to  be  made  possible. 

HOW? 

How  is  the  reduction  of  armaments  to  be  begun?  How  else 
than  by  those  to  whom  the  high  trust  of  governing  nations  has 
been  committed  breaking  away  from  mere  convention  and  act- 
ing with  the  courage  of  high  conviction? 

Every  statesman,  every  cabinet,  every  ruler,  is  beset  by  phan- 
toms of  the  past,  by  half  defined  perils  of  the  present,  by  self 
seeking  politicians  and  manufacturers  of  warlike  materials.  Not 
many  could  act  if  they  would;  still  fewer  would  act  if  they  could. 
But  it  is  for  us  who  believe  in  lifting  this  burden,  not  only  from 
our  country,  but  from  all  mankind;  for  us  who  believe  that  the 
time  is  ripe  for  Christian  civilization  to  reap  the  fruits  of  centuries 
of  growth,  to  beat  upon  the  dull  ears  of  legislators  and  stir  the 
cold  hearts  of  executives,  until  the  thoughts  of  the  wisest  states- 


COLLIER  257 

men  are  translated  into  action.  Today  is  ours.  We  know  not 
what  the  future  has  in  store.  It  is  for  us  to  act  now  while  it  is 
called  today — for  us  as  individuals,  and  for  us  as  great  bodies  of 
men  and  women  informed  and  inspired  by  a  great  cause. 

Abraham  Lincoln  in  his  address  in  Independence  Hall,  Phil- 
adelphia, February  22,  i86ir,  spoke  of  "that  sentiment  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  which  gave  liberty — not  a,lone  to  the 
people  of  this  country,  but  hope  to  all  the  world  for  all  future  time. 
It  was  that  which  gave  promise  that  in  due  time  the  burden  should 
be  lifted  from  the  shoulders  of  all  men." 

That  promise  will  be  fulfilled  in  great  measure  when  govern- 
ments shall  be  content  to  seek  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  their 
own  people  within  their  own  territory,  neither  greedy  for  the  land 
of  others  nor  jealous  of  their  prosperity,  strong  in  conscious 
rectitude  of  purpose,  and  united  in  international  bonds  which 
shall  make  it  at  once  the  duty  and  interest  of  each  nation  to  seek 
and  maintain  the  integrity  and  freedom  of  every  other. 

Chairman  Abbott:  "What  are  We  Doing  for  Peace  in  the 
Far  East?"  I  am  very  glad  to  introduce  to  you  now  one  who  needs 
no  introduction  to  the  readers  in  America,  Mr.  Price  Collier,  who 
will  give  us  some  answers  to  that  question. 

WHAT  ARE  WE  DOING  FOR  PEACE  IN  THE 
FAR  EAST? 

PRICE    COLLIER 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Six  months  ago  I  re- 
turned from  a  year  of  travel  in  the  Far  East.  I  visited  India, 
Burma,  the  Straits  Settlements,  China,  Japan,  Korea,  Manchuria, 
Siberia  and  Russia.  I  have  been  asked  here  to  speak  on  the  sub- 
ject of  "What  we  are  doing  for  Peace  in  the  Far  East"  and  I 
propose  to  add  to  that  "What  more  can  be  done  in  America  and 
by   Americans"   in   that   direction. 

More,  far  more,  than  half  the  distrust  of  one  another,  of  the 
nations  of  the  earth  is  due  to  nothing  more  mysterious  than  just 


258  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

plain,  complete  and  indifferent  ignorance.  We  can  do  much  for 
peace  therefore  by  knowing  one  another  better.  The  prejudiced 
and  superficial  talker,  and  the  scare-head  loving  press,  do  more, 
to  quote  a  line  from  Macbeth,  *'to  pour  the  sweet  milk  of  Concord 
into  Hell,"  than  all  other  agencies  combined.  A  purposeless 
curiosity  that  cares  nothing  for  truth,  pampered  each  day  with 
highly  seasoned  misinformation,  is  far  more  dangerous  to  peace 
than  any  peril  now  existing  on  the  horizon  of  international  affairs, 
whether  it  be  yellow,  black,  or  brown.  The  greatest  peril  to 
peace  today  is  not  brown,  nor  yellow;  it  is  white!  It  is  white 
ignorance,  white  prejudice,  and  the  sheltered  snobbery  of  the 
suburban  sectarianism  of  the  white  man!  I  am  no  orator,  no 
seeker  after  the  precarious  popularity  which  comes  to  him  who 
fondles  the  mob  with  deceitful  words:  "those  windy  attorneys  of 
client  woes,  those  poor  breathing  orators  of  miseries!" 

I  return  to  my  country  to  hear  much  of  sedition  in  India;  and 
even  more,  of  the  aggressive  preparations  for  war  on  the  part  of 
Japan  and  I  am  astonished  at  the  ignorance  of  my  countrymen  on 
both  subjects. 

India  has  a  population  of  320,000,000  and  an  area  in  square 
miles  equal  to  the  whole  of  Europe  less  Russia.  India  for  the 
two  thousand  years  that  history  has  known  her,  has  been  rent  and 
torn  and  mauled  by  foreign  conquerors  and  raiders  from  without; 
and  by  fierce  jealousies  of  race  and  creed  and  caste  from  within. 
India  is  governed  today  by  the  British  and  for  the  first  time  in 
the  life  of  India  there  have  been  peace,  security  and  equal  oppor- 
tunity there,  greater  security  to  life  and  property  than  in  the 
streets  of  New  York,  unless  you  belong  to  a  Teamsters'  Union, 
or  are  a  protege  of  Tammany  Hall!  The  governing  of  India  by 
the  British  is  the  most  splendid  service  ever  rendered  to  one  nation 
by  another.  India  is  no  more  fit  for  self-government  at  this  mo- 
ment than  the  inmates  of  a  menagerie.  There  is  a  society  of  white 
men  in  this  country  sending  money  and  literature  into  India  to 
stir  up  sedition  there.  Mr.  President,  if  I  had  the  power  I  would 
arbitrate  those  white  seditionists,  with  their  headquarters  in 
America,  out  of  existence!  The  civil  service  of  the  British  in 
India  is  above  either  reproach  or  suspicion,  candor  non  laeditur 


COLLIER  259 

auro.  Fortunately  for  India  and  for  peace  in  the  East,  sedition, 
unrest,  disloyalty  in  India  are  helpless.  Of  themselves  they  can  no 
more  throw  off  British  rule,  than  this  audience  can  add  another 
hue  to  the  rainbow,  or  wave  aside  a  Cape  Cod  fog  with  fans. 

Wendell  Phillips  once  remarked  that  the  Puritans  believed 
Hell  was  a  place  where  every  man  would  be  obliged  to  mind  his 
own  business.  We  Americans  can  do  something  for  peace  by 
minding  our  own  business,  and  letting  the  British  mind  theirs 
in  India;  even  though  some  of  my  meddling  fellow-countrymen 
find  the  heat  of  such  non-interference  in  other  people's  afifairs, 
oppressive. 

We  are  just  recovering  from  a  fever  of  excitement  about  Japan. 
Japan  has  a  population  of  50,000,000  with  compulsory  education 
and  compulsory  military  service.  She  is  able  to  put  850,000 
fighting  men  into  the  field  at  a  moment's  notice.  She  has  191 
war  vessels  aggregating  495,000  tons.  She  has  spent  on  her  navy 
during  the  last  four  years  $134,000,000.  She  has  5000  miles  of 
railway,  and  more  are  building,  and  her  export  and  import  trade 
amounts  to  about  $450,000,000  per  annum;  our  exports  and  im- 
ports of  domestic  merchandise,  amounted  in  1908  to  over  $3,000,- 
000,000.  Her  expenditures  in  1910  amounted  to  $267,000,000; 
her  taxes  in  the  same  year  amounted  to  $160,000,000,  and  her 
national  debt  stands  today  at  $1,151,000,000.  The  total  area 
of  Japan,  whose  national  debt  is  larger  than  ours,  is  147,651 
square  miles,  a  little  smaller  than  the  State  of  California.  So 
mountainous,  and  barren  and  difficult,  is  the  land  of  Japan,  that 
even  these  people  of  ant-like  industry  can  only  bring  one-sixth 
of  the  total  area  under  cultivation;  there  are  therefore  only  24,608 
square  miles  which  can  be  cultivated  at  all,  and  one-half  of  this 
is  given  over  to  the  raising  of  rice!  The  farm  area  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  alone,  is  twice  the  extent  of  the  whole  available  farm 
area  of  Japan. 

The  Russian  War,  an  inconclusive  war,  cost  the  Japanese 
85,000  killed;  600,000  casualties  and  $1,000,000,000.  Do  not  be 
discouraged  by  these  figures.  They  are  part  of  an  interesting 
picture,  and  with  all  the  chatter  one  hears  about  Japan  it  is 
worth  your  while  to  know  the  facts  of  the  case,  when  the  Japanese 


26o  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

peril  is  being  dealt  with  in  the  lingua  Hohsoniana.  In  1895 
Japan  took  from  China  the  island  of  Formosa,  of  some  13,000 
square  miles  in  area,  with  a  population  of  3,000,000.  Only  the 
other  day  she  annexed  Korea  with  an  area  of  71,000  square  miles 
and  10,000,000  inhabitants;  and  after  the  Russian  War  she  occu- 
pied the  Liao-tung  peninsula  and  controls  part  of  southern  Man- 
churia, This  pyramid  of  recent  conquests  is  built  upon  24,000 
square  miles  of  cultivated  area,  one-half  of  which  is  given  over  to 
the  raising  of  rice;  and  upon  a  population  just  emerged  from  feud- 
alism, worshipping  the  ancestors  of  a  puppet  king,  and  with  a 
national  debt  larger  than  that  of  the  United  States.  If  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  bankers  attempted  to  sell  the  Japanese  bonds 
they  hold  at  this  present  moment,  Japan  would  be  bankrupt 
in  a  month. 

I  traveled  through  Japan,  crossed  to  Korea,  traveled  through 
Korea,  crossed  the  Yalu  River  in  a  Chinese  junk — there  is  no 
bridge  as  yet — and  then  on  the  crazy  little  30-inch  gauge  railway, 
which  General  Kuroki  laid  down  for  the  transportation  of  troops 
and  supplies  during  the  Russian- Japanese  war,  I  traveled  through 
Manchuria  to  Mukden.  It  is  a  tortuous,  tiresome,  alid  even 
dangerous  journey,  but  there  lies  the  heart  of  the  whole  Eastern 
question.  Japan  is  building  bridges,  building  a  broad-gauge 
railway  from  the  Yalu  River  to  Mukden,  and  using  every  effort 
to  push  Japanese  settlers  into  that  country.  Japan  will  then  have 
direct  communication  over  a  well-built  railway,  from  Tokio  to 
Peking  and  Shanghai;  from  Tokio  to  Moscow,  St.  Petersburgh, 
BerHn,  Paris  and  London.  She  will  then  pour  her  cotton  goods 
into  China  and  tap  the  rich  coal  and  ore  fields  of  Manchuria  and 
Middle  China,  for  her  factories  at  OsaJta  and  elsewhere.  The 
open  door  to  China  will  be  a  wide  open  door  with  custom  house 
officers,  with  police,  and  soldiers  on  both  sides  of  it;  and  they  will 
all  wear  Japanese  uniforms.  But  only  twenty-five  miles  of  the 
new  railway  between  Mukden  and  the  Yalu  River  are  completed, 
the  bridge  over  that  river  is  only  just  begun.  There  are  from 
three  to  five  years'  work  at  least,  ahead  of  them,  and  hard  work 
at  that,  for  part  of  the  railway  line  is  through  mountainous  and 
difficult  country.     As  I  have  just  come  from  that  country,  you 


COLLIER  261 

will  forgive  me,  if  I  smile  at  the  mass  of  lurid  misinformation  to 
which  you  in  America  have  been  treated.  The  paramount  and 
imperative  interests  of  Japan,  for  some  years  at  least  are  in  For- 
mosa, in  Korea  and  in  Manchuria.  I  will  prove  it  to  you.  In  the 
year  1908,  9544  Japanese  were  admitted  into  the  United  States 
(exclusive  of  Hawaii);  while  during  the  year  1909  only  2432 
Japanese  came  to  this  country,  and  this  includes  all  Japanese 
whether  laborers  or  not.  In  the  year  19 10,  only  705  Japanese 
came,  and  they  were  all  without  exception  returning  laborers,  or 
parents,  wives  or  children,  of  domiciled  laborers.  The  immigra- 
tion of  Japanese  into  Hawaii  from  1 908-1 909  decreased  83  per 
cent  and  from  1909-1910  more  Japanese  left  Hawaii  than  entered. 
I  am  willing  to  admit  all  the  selfishness  and  aggressiveness  of  the 
Japanese,  but  having  seen  their  struggles  and  difficulties  in  con- 
solidating their  power  in  Formosa  and  Korea,  having  seen  the 
feverish  activity  in  Manchuria,  I  beg  to  submit  to  the  bellicose 
orators,  and  to  the  epicene  warriors  whose  titles  are  derived  from 
prancing  in  uniform  behind  a  civilian  governor,  that  Japan  has 
her  work  cut  out  for  some  years  to  come;  to  pay  her  bills,  to  gain 
and  hold  and  control  her  new  territory;  and  that  bankruptcy  not 
battle  is  her  chief  concern. 

There  is  no  country  in  the  world  with  such  a  large  proportion 
of  people  who  can  read  and  write,  but  who  do  not  think,  who  have 
a  passion  for  the  disconnected,  as  in  this  country.  With  a  few 
exceptions  our  press  is  irresponsible,  flippant  and  uninformed; 
and  it  panders  to  the  purposeless  curiosity  of  this  great  number 
of  intellectually  dissipated  readers.  This  mass  of  undigested 
news  ferments  in  the  body  politic  for  its  own  undoing. 

Nothing  is  more  aggravating  than  parochial  ignorance,  nothing 
more  opinionated  than  racial  prejucide,  nothing  more  difficult 
to  deal  with  than  that  narrow  uprightness  which  so  often  expresses 
itself  in  downrightness.  I  take  it  that  one  object  of  this  National 
Peace  Congress  is  to  triumph  over  such  obstacles;  to  give  battle 
to  the  suburban  sages  who  pretend  to  rule  this  country,  and  who 
by  their  stiff  self-satisfaction,  and  their  profound  ignorance  and 
contempt  for  any  basis  for  society  except  their  own,  make  ami- 
cable relations  between  this  and  other  countries  doubly  difficult. 


262  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

In  the  past  we  were  internationally  speaking  a  negligible  quan- 
tity. A  small  boy  with  a  wooden  sword,  and  his  hat  cocked  over 
his  eyes,  parades  the  streets,  shouting  that  he  is  a  Robin  Hood,  and 
nobody  cares.  A  grown  man  with  a  bowie-knife  in  his  belt  and 
a  revolver  in  his  hand  steps  into  the  street  and  every  citizen 
denounces  him.  There  was  no  danger  from  our  complacent  ignor- 
ance in  the  past,  our  self-righteous  ineptitude  was  safe,  though 
ridiculous.     I  bring  you  the  message  that  this  is  no  longer  the  case. 

There  is  no  immediate  danger,  as  I  believe  I  have  shown  you; 
but  if  we  do  not  take  a  hand  in  educating  the  American  out  of  his 
newspaper-bred  bumptiousness,  and  his  complacent  conceit, 
and  the  scornful  dominance  of  a  depressing  mediocrity  there  will 
be  trouble. 

This  platform  is  no  place  for  party  politics,  and  I  am  not  here 
to  introduce  controversy;  and  I  place  myself,  and  I  hope  you  also, 
outside  of  party  for  the  moment,  to  mention  two  opportunities 
for  the  furtherance  of  good  fellowship  between  nations  which  I 
hope  this  country  will  not  neglect.  One  is  the  reciprocity  treaty 
with  Canada,  and  the  other,  some  form  of  arbitration  treaty  be- 
tween this  country  and  Great  Britain.  Is  it  possible  that  any 
section  of  this  country  is  willing  to  proclaim  that  its  own  selfish 
interests  must  outweigh  the  good  of  the  whole?  Are  there  farmers 
who  will  fight  this  plan  for  commercial  intercourse,  and  hence  for 
friendlier  feeling  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  on  any 
such  ground  as  that?  It  may  surprise  you  to  know,  that  I  have 
a  farm  in  this  very  State  of  Maryland,  and  that  my  forbears  for 
more  than  two  centuries  have  lived  in  this  State,  and  were  that 
farm  worth  a  thousand  times  what  it  is,  I  would  sow  it  with  salt, 
rather  than  that  anyone  should  say,  he  pitted  the  products  of  his 
farm  against  his  country's  reputation  for  friendliness  and  fair- 
deaHng.  "My  Maryland,  My  Maryland,"  but  not  at  the  price  of 
branding  my  country  as  a  nation  of  pedlars. 

If  we  make  impossible  a  treaty  of  arbitration  with  Great  Brit- 
ain we  shirk  a  duty  and  a  high  one.  If  Europe  were  relieved  of 
the  enormous  burden  of  armament,  if  that  colossal  statue  of  Mars 
built  of  steel  and  iron  which  weighs  like  sulBfocation  upon  the 
workers  of  Europe  and  Japan  were  removed,  we  should  give  every 


COLLIER  263 

V 

man  seeking  the  religious  and  political  freedom  we  enjoy,  a  better 
chance  to  win  them.  Are  we  to  hug  our  privileges  to  ourselves? 
Is  this  the  ideal  of  democracy?  Is  this  our  vaunted  love  of  liberty? 
Is  this  our  championship  of  the  downtrodden  of  other  lands? 
This  is  Liberty  turning  her  back  upon  the  world!  This  is 
Prowess  cowering  in  its  prosperity  and  refusing  to  abide  by  its 
own  baptism!  This  is  Freedom  in  a  shroud!  We  proclaim  our- 
selves the  chosen  people.  The  lately  elected  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  his  opening  speech  spoke  of  us  as  "the  hope 
of  the  world!"  Well,  here  is  our  chance  to  prove  it.  Here  is  an 
opportunity  blazoned  before  the  eyes  of  all  other  nations,  to  trans- 
late some  of  our  sickening  Fourth-of-July  bombast  into  deeds; 
to  subordinate  our  sectional  grievances,  our  petty  party  cries,  our 
acidulous  political  jealousies  to  the  welfare  of  the  world !  When 
we  Americans  decline  to  take  part  in  arbitration  treaties  we  are 
far  more  guilty  than  other  nations.  For  our  very  excuse  for 
being  as  a  nation,  our  very  political  ideal,  the  very  democracy 
in  which  we  pretend  to  believe;  these  all  imply  equality,  liberty, 
opportunity  for  us,  and  for  all  men  to  whom  we  can  extend  them. 
The  Germans,  the  Russians,  the  Japanese  may  be  wrong  when  the 
they  decline  arbitration,  but  we  Americans  are  traitors  to  our  trust, 
and  hypocrites  besides. 

We  are  already  suspected  of  hypocrisy  by  other  nations.  They 
claim  and  not  without  reason,  that  we  are  fierce  and  not  always 
fair  competitors  for  trade,  but  that  is  too  hazy  an  accusation  to 
discuss.  But  I  do  agree  that  we  are  making  a  bad  impression  by 
our  drummer  diplomacy.  Our  ministers  and  ambassadors  abroad 
should  of  course  protect  to  the  utmost  our  trade  and  commerce, 
and  see  to  it  that  we  have  equal  privileges  with  our  rivals.  We 
are  now-a-days — and  a  woeful  blunder  it  is — permitting  our  di- 
plomatic representatives  to  take  active  part  in  the  selling  of  goods 
and  the  getting  of  contracts.  It  is  considered  a  feather  in  a 
diplomat's  cap  if  he  succeeds  in  getting  the  contract  for  the  build- 
ing of  a  gun-boat.  I  consider  such  activity  a  disgrace  to  him, 
and  a  disgrace  to  the  country  that  employs  him.  Is  democracy 
to  be  sent  abroad  to  play  its  part  among  other  nations  in  the  gab- 
ardine of  Shylock?    Is  the  sole  ideal  we  have  to  represent,  say 


264  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

to  the  South  American  Republics,  that  of  a  pedlar?  May  I 
claim  for  you  that  such  a  man  does  not  represent  you?  I  cer- 
tainly claim  that  he  does  not  represent  me.  I  deny  that  all  the 
activities  of  this  country,  its  education,  its  striving  for  equality 
and  liberty  and  the  opportunity  for  distinction,  are  best  set  forth 
in  the  person  of  a  mere  bargain  hunter.  No  wonder  other  nations 
distrust  us,  if  "v^are  to  be  thus  represented.  It  is  a  very  cheap 
invitation  to  friendliness  and  confidence  and  arbitration  to  begin 
by  attempting  to  sell  something!  We  want  trade,  yes,  and  let 
every  honest  trader  receive  full  protection;  but  we  want  the  world 
to  know  and  to  see  the  best  products  of  democracy;  its  scholar- 
ship, its  magnanimity,  its  gentleness,  its  good  breeding,  its  friend- 
liness, its  love  of  peace.  We  win  some  renown  for  our  country 
when  we  are  represented  by  a  Hay,  a  James  Russell  Lowell,  a 
Bayard,  a  Choate,  a  Reid,  a  Rockhill;  but  when  we  send  the  toady 
of  a  political  party  or  a  smart  salesman,  we  give  the  lie  to  our  ideals 
and  other  nations  are  quick  to  sneer. 

You  call  me  misbeliever,  cut-throat  dog. 
And  spit  upon  my  Jewish  gabardine 

and  well  they  may,  if  we  are  to  permit  this  drummer  diplomacy. 
We  gain  more  of  appreciation  and  belief  in  our  good  intentions 
abroad,  through  four  years  of  a  Hay,  a  Choate  or  a  Bayard  or  a 
Reid  than  by  contracts  for  forty  gun-boats.  It  is  a  fatal  blunder 
we  are  making  in  South  America  to  give  them  the  impression  that 
what  we  want  from  them  is  their  trade;  and  to  send  them  drum- 
mer diplomats.  What  we  should  say  to  them  is:  We  want  your 
friendliness,  your  fellowship,  your  cooperation  in  building  and 
maintaining  democratic  institutions,  and  let  trade  follow  if  it 
will. 

I  say  this  much  of  reciprocity,  of  arbitration,  of  drummer  di- 
plomacy, because  I  distrust  thinking  that  finds  no  vent  in  action ; 
I  believe  it  to  be  mentally  and  morally  debilitating  to  listen  merely 
out  of  curiosity;  I  believe  it  weakens  a  man,  a  society  or  a  nation, 
to  have  purposes  that  find  no  plans.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
great  object  of  public  policy  can  be  attained  by  congresses,  con- 
ferences or  subsidies  alone!     But  we  can  all  take  a  hand  in  these 


COLLIER  265 

matters.  We  can  protest  by  voice  and  pen  and  at  the  ballot- 
box  and  in  the  newspapers  against  sectional  selfishness;  against 
the  mean  nationalism  that  fears  to  take  its  share  of  responsibility 
in  keeping  the  peace;  and  above  all  we  can  protest  loud  and  long 
against  drummer  diplomacy.  We  can  all  do  something  toward 
cutting  out  the  canker  of  buncombe,  which  eats  away  at  our  intel- 
lectual sincerity  whether  political,  moral  or  international.  We 
can  all  shout  buncombe  at  the  man  who  proclaims  that  we  are  the 
light  of  the  world,  and  then  proceeds  to  so  shade  its  beams  that 
they  only  fall  upon  his  own  constituency,  his  own  party,  his  own 
political  advancement. 

I  was  talking  not  long  ago  with  a  hungry  office-seeker  in  Wash- 
ington, who  lectured  me  upon  the  value  of  having  a  constituency 
to  back  your  begging  for  office.  He  was  pleased  with  his  own 
efforts  in  courting  and  nursing  a  constituency,  which  he  proposed 
to  use  to  back  his  claims.  He  said  that  he  proposed  to  join  a 
church,  that  the  American  people  liked  a  man  to  be  a  church 
member!  I  do  not  believe  that  the  American  people  are  so  de- 
graded, so  easily  humbugged  that  they  have  no  use  for  a  man  whose 
only  constituency  is  his  own  soul.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe 
that  we  are  coming  more  and  more  to  see  that  such  men  are  a 
necessity;  that  such  a  society  as  this  for  example  where  men  meet 
to  lay  aside  the  rancor  of  party  in  order  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  all,  is  invaluable.  But  even  here  we  must  not  lose  ourselves 
in  any  hazy  sentimentality.  We  writers  and  speakers  get  into 
the  bad  habit  of  mistaking  the  problems  of  the  world.  We  think 
that  these  problems  are  a  maze  of  words;  in  reality  these  prob- 
lems are  masses  of  men!  The  reformer  of  all  men  should  be 
tough  not  tender-minded.  I  have  always  believed,  and  my 
experience  of  the  Far  East  has  strengthened  that  belief,  that  a 
strong  man,  that  a  strong  nation  are  best  adapted  to  bring  peace. 

Duelling  ceased — Why?  Because  men  whose  honor  and  cour- 
age and  physical  ability  were  unimpeachable,  said  that  duelling 
was  ridiculous.  If  weak  men  refuse  to  fight  they  are  called 
cowards;  but  when  strong  men  refuse  to  fight,  fighting  ceases. 

I  suppose  no  intelligent  man  believes  in  war  qua  war;  neither 
can  he  p|Ossibly  believe  that  the  settlement  of  boundary  claims, 

\ 


266  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  matters  of  national  sensitiveness  is  best  arrived  at  by  the 
slaughter  of  thousands  of  men  and  the  spending  of  millions  of 
money.  Our  only  differences  are  questions  as  to  how  to  avoid 
such  deplorable  and  childish  methods. 

In  the  present  state  of  the  world,  I  can  see  no  alternative,  but 
that  the  peace-loving  nations  should  keep  themselves  strong 
enough  to  maintain  peace.  Gentlemen  dropped  wearing  rapiers 
when  they  found  that  law  and  public  opinion  were  strong  enough 
to  protect  them.  If  I  marched  upon  this  platform  with  a  rapier 
by  my  side,  I  should  be  ridiculed.  When  nations  and  the  strong 
nations  prove  to  the  world  that  they  can  live  in  peace,  other  na- 
tions will  lay  aside  their  swords,  because  to  wear  them  will  be 
absurd. 

That  most  peaceable  of  men,  the  poet  of  the  church,  George 
Herbert,  wrote:  "You  cannot  get  beyond  danger  without  dan- 
ger." I  defy  any  American  to  show  me  how  he  can  get  beyond 
the  danger  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  for  example,  without  the 
danger  of  a  fortified  canal,  and  a  powerful  navy.  Not  even 
Yankee  ingenuity  can  get  beyond  danger  without  danger!  Our 
selfish,  thoroughly  unchristian,  and  topsy-turvy  logic  which 
preaches  peace  in  India,  China,  Japan  and  Korea  and  then  threat- 
ens dire  punishment  upon  any  one  who  attempts  to  share  with  us 
the  opportunities  of  the  golden  west,  needs  a  powerful  force  be- 
hind it,  until  we  can  solve  such  problems  among  ourselves. 

I  admit,  I  have  admitted,  not  only  the  horrors  of  war  but  its 
lunacy  among  civilized  peoples,  but  I  will  be  no  party  to  a  policy 
of  defencelessness.  The  ambassadors  of  peace  should  not  be 
sent  with  the  halters  of  powerlessness  dangling  from  their  necks. 
Teaching  and  training  our  boys  and  youths  rough  sports  does 
not  make  them  bellicose.  And  a  nation  prepared  to  fight  if 
necessary,  but  holding  out  stoutly  for  peace  is  our  best  policy  till 
the  world  laughs  at  its  past  of  quarrelsomeness  and  lays  aside 
the   sword,   belt   and   bayonet. 

In  short,  I  believe  every  man  ought  to  know  how  to  fight,  and 
be  trained  to  physical  toughness  and  then  do  everything  in  his 
power  to  prevent  fighting.  A  proud  and  powerful  people  which 
proves  that  it  can  live  and  prosper  without  war  is  the  best  apostle 


ANDREWS  267 

of  peace.     "By  the  peace  among  our  people  let  men  know  we 
serve  the  Lord." 

Chairman  Abbott:  It  now  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  call 
upon  Mrs.  Fannie  Fern  Andrews,  who  will  address  you  on  the 
subject  of  "Education  and  International  Peace." 


EDUCATION  AND  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 

FANNIE    FERN   ANDREWS 

All  that  has  been  accomplished  in  the  international  peace  move- 
ment has  been  done  through  the  process  of  education.  The  de- 
velopment of  constructive  peace  machinery  has  progressed  just 
so  far  as  public  opinion  has  supported  the  specific  measures. 
No  convention  was  adopted  by  the  delegates  at  The  Hague 
Conferences,  and  no  progressive  steps  in  international  agreements 
have  been  taken  since  that  time  without  the  sanction  of  inter- 
national public  opinion.  This  obviously  has  shaped  its  decisions 
according  to  the  knowledge  possessed  by  the  people  of  interna- 
tional affairs.  The  international  peace  movement  is  today,  as 
it  has  always  been,  an  educational  campaign.  The  peace  socie- 
ties, the  national  peace  congresses,  the  international  peace  con- 
gresses and  all  other  efforts  aiming  to  create  a  sentiment  which 
will  demand  advanced  steps  in  international  politics  are  all  a 
part  of  this  world-wide  education.  We  have  indeed  witnessed 
a  great  change  in  the  world's  viewpoint,  as  was  evidenced  yester- 
day by  the  significant  address  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  The  burden  is  to  disseminate  the  spirit  of  justice  and  rea- 
son throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  whole  world,  so  to 
habituate  the  nations  into  thinking  in  terms  of  peace. 

This  is  one  phase  of  the  educational  campaign;  but  there  is 
another,  more  far-reaching  and  fundamental,  which  must  proceed 
simultaneously.  If  law  is  to  be  substituted  for  war  it  must 
be  chiejfly  through  the  children  of  the  present  generation  and  their 
successors  who  must  carry  out  those  constructive  measures  begun 
at  the  present  time.     It  rests  upon  future  generations  to  perfect 


268  THIRD    AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  great  plan  of  world  organization,  a  task  larger  and  more  com- 
plex than  man  has  yet  been  called  upon  to  perform. 

Since  the  school  is  the  most  thoroughly  organized  agency  of 
education,  it  is  to  the  teacher  that  we  must  look  for  the  inculca- 
tion in  the  minds  of  the  youth  of  these  new  ideas  which  are  de- 
manding new  responsibilities  for  the  citizen.  It  was  in  recog- 
nition of  this  function  of  the  schools  that  the  French  minister 
of  public  instruction  prescribed  the  teaching  of  international 
arbitration,  humanity  and  brotherhood  in  the  primary,  secondary 
and  normal  schools  of  France. 

Fancy  the  universal  teaching  of  these  principles!  How  long 
before  the  spirit  of  justice  and  peace  would  be  ingrained  in  the 
lives  of  the  future  citizens.  Indeed,  the  teacher  has  the  power 
to  reweave  the  whole  fabric  of  human  thought. 

An. organized  body  of  teachers,  therefore,  formed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  inculcating  the  spirit  of  justice  and  equity  in  the  minds 
of  the  growing  youth  is  a  vital  element  in  the  international  peace 
movement.  It  is  of  such  a  body  of  teachers  that  I  shall  speak 
this  evening.  The  American  School-Peace  League,  organized  in 
1908,  aims  to  secure  the  support  of  the  teaching  force  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  international  peace  movement.  Through  summer 
schools,  educational  conventions,  and  teachers'  institutes,  through 
the  educational  press  of  the  country,  and  through  the  distribution 
of  literature  which  especially  relates  the  international  movement 
to  the  teachers'  work,  the  League  has  secured  the  active  cooper- 
ation of  thousands  of  teachers.  There  are,  however,  nearly  five 
hundred  thousand  teachers  in  this  country,  and  the  League  counts 
its  work  incomplete  until  the  information  has  been  passed  to  each 
one  of  them. 

In  order,  however,  to  reach  the  teachers  with  the  greatest  direct- 
ness and  therefore  with  the  greatest  economy,  the  League  has  or- 
ganized State  branches  to  the  number  of  twenty-one,  which  have 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  interesting  each  and  every  teacher 
in  their  respective  States.  Some  of  these  branches  have  made 
invaluable  contributions  to  the  propaganda  of  the  international 
idea,  notable  among  which  are  the  Arkansas  and  the  Massachu- 
setts branches.     The  former  has  published  a  play,  called  *'Arbi- 


ANDREWS  269 

tration,"  which  it  is  sending  out  to  the  teachers  of  the  State. 
The  play  will  be  used  this  year  for  Peace  Day  and  commence- 
ment exercises.  The  Massachusetts  branch  has  just  completed 
an  outline  course  of  study  on  what  it  has  termed  **  Goodwill." 
This  is  a  graded  course  covering  the  first  eight  grades  of  school, 
and  develops  in  an  interesting,  practical  fashion  the  principles 
of  internationalism.  The  subject  for  Grade  I  is.  Good  will  to 
Pets  and  Playmates;  in  Grade  II,  The  Ties  of  Home  Life;  Grade 
III,  Those  of  School  and  Play- time;  Grades  IV  and  V,  The  Ties 
to  the  City  or  Town;  in  Grade  VI  the  course  reaches  out  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole,  associating  the  work  with  history  and  geogra- 
phy; in  Grade  VII,  the  course  accents  month  by  month  the  helpful 
characteristics  of  the  many  nationalities  who  mould  American  life; 
Grade  VIII,  teaches  the  need  of  fighting  together,  a  united  army 
of  many  nations,  against  disease,  corruption,  and  in  defense  of 
civic  ideals.  The  Committee  which  have  constructed  this  course 
have  designated  the  method  of  using  it,  as  illustrated  in  the  fol- 
lowing explanatory  statement: 

"The  plan  here  suggested  can  be  used  by  each  teacher  in  the 
way  best  suited  to  the  needs  and  opportunities  of  the  school. 
When  there  are  no  definite  periods  planned  for  moral  training, 
the  topics  can  be  made  the  subject  of  morning  exercises  or  can  be 
brought  out  through  classes  in  literature.  In  many  instances  the 
work  can  be  associated  with  history  or  civics. 

''Ethical  lessons  for  little  children  should  not  be  more  than  ten 
or  fifteen  minutes  in  length.  With  advanced  children  thirty  or 
forty  minutes  may  be  profitably  spent.  Lessons  should  be  fre- 
quent enough  to  make  a  lasting  impression. 

''There  is  no  better  way  ol  securing  a  permanent  impression 
than  by  weaving  the  lessons  in  Goodwill  into  the  very  fabric 
of  school  life  and  associating  them  with  simple  progressive  forms 
of  social  service. 

"Thus  even  the  youngest  children  can  learn  from  the  lessons  on 
kindness  that  they  should  refrain  from  rudeness  to  the  Chinese 
laundryman  or  the  Italian  organ-grinder;  in  the  primary  grades 
they  can  practise  respect  for  the  laws  of  the  country  and  the  police. 
Before  long  they  can  form  Junior  Citizens'  Clubs  and  keep  the 


270  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

neighorhood  in  good  order,  and  through  every  year  they  can  be 
led  to  exercise  their  loyalty,  open  mindnedess,  and  goodwill." 

As  soon  as  the  League  was  organized,  it  recognized  that  the 
greatest  opportunity  for  teaching  justice  is  through  the  teaching 
of  history,  and  it  moreover  recognized  that  much  of  the  present 
teaching  of  this  subject  developed  just  the  opposite  idea  which 
the  League  was  aiming  to  stimulate.  The  Committee  on  the 
Teaching  of  History  instituted  an  investigation.  It  found  that 
"in  some  school  systems  much  time  is  devoted  to  the  study  of 
(i)  Such  useless  details  as  unimportant  dates  and  statistical  mat- 
ter; (2)  the  complex  principles  underlying  the  organization  and 
evolution  of  political  parties;  and  (3)  battles  and  military  cam- 
paigns." The  report  further  states  that  "by  far  the  greatest 
waste  in  history  teaching  results  from  the  excessive  and  dispro- 
portionate amount  of  time  which  is  spent  in  the  study  of  wars. 
While,  of  course,  wars  should  be  studied  and  should  receive  much 
attention  on  account  of  the  important  part  they  have  played  in 
both  racial  and  national  evolution,  they  should  not  involve  the 
teaching  of  the  military  minutae  of  campaigns  and  battles." 
And  finally  the  Committee  says,  "When  we  learn  to  keep  in  mind 
the  right  perspective  in  teaching  the  national  biography  of  such 
a  peace-loving  people  as  we  have  been  from  the  beginning  of  our 
history,  we  shall  devote  to  the  arts  of  peace  and  to  the  social- and 
industrial  conditions  of  life  that  large  measure  of  attention  which 
is  their  due." 

Twenty  thousand  copies  of  this  report  have  been  distributed 
all  over  the  country  and  in  Europe,  and  many  conferences  have 
been  held  to  discuss  the  next  steps  which  our  Committee  might 
follow  to  bring  about  a  better  balanced  teaching  of  history.  The 
writing  of  history  text-books  is  a  most  important  element  in  this 
discussion. 

The  Amercian  School  Peace  League  believes  most  strongly  that 
the  teachers  of  the  whole  world  should  work  together  in  this  move- 
ment, so  that  the  coming  generations  of  all  nations  may  be  trained 
simultaneously  to  recognize  the  efficiency  of  judicial  and  legis- 
lative measures  in  the  constantly  increasing  relations  among  the 
nations  of  the  world. 


ANDREWS  271 

To  develop  this  plan,  the  secretary  of  the  League  spent  three 
months  in  Europe  last  year  studying  possible  methods  of  ap- 
proach. After  numerous  conferences  in  Sweden,  Denmark,  Hol- 
land, Belgium,  France,  Germany  and  England,  where  the  most 
cordial  response  was  given  to  the  idea,  the  secretary  found  that 
certain  lines  of  organization  were  necessary  for  any  complete 
development  of  international  cooperation  among  the  educational 
forces  of  the  world. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  needed  in  every  country  some  national 
organization,  similar  to  the  American  School  Peace  League, 
through  which  a  knowledge  of  the  international  movement  can 
be  extended  to  the  teachers,  and  by  means  of  which  common  action 
can  be  obtained  among  the  educators  of  the  world.  The  League, 
therefore,  recommends  the  formation  of  national  leagues. 

Secondly:  Several  educational  publications  bearing  on  inter- 
nationalism, which  are  in  use  in  different  countries,  might  with 
great  benefit  be  translated  for  the  teachers  of  other  countries. 
As  an  example,  one  might  mention  Cours  D'Enseignement  Paci- 
fiste  by  A.  Seve,  a  book  which  received  one  of  the  three  first  prizes 
offered  by  the  International  Peace  Bureau  for  the  best  course 
on  internationalism  for  the  use  of  teachers.  This  book  has  been 
placed  in  the  hands  of  many  French  teachers  during  the  past  year. 
Many  parts  of  this  book,  as  well  as  parts  of  the  two  other  winning 
books,  might  with  equal  profit  be  read  by  teachers  of  all  countries. 
Some  of  the  publications  in  England,  Belgium,  Italy,  Sweden, 
Germany,  and  the  United  States  ought  to  be  made  accessible  to 
readers  in  other  countries.  Moreover,  to  develop  common  inter- 
national sentiment  among  educators,  it  is  highly  desirable  to 
build  up  a  body  of  literature  which  can  be  used  by  educators  all 
over  the  world.  There  could  be,  for  example,  a  set  of  inter- 
national school  readers,  stories  and  plays  treating  of  incidents 
which  develop  broad  and  generous  ideas  about  other  nations. 

Moreover,  a  very  important  consideration  of  the  matter  of 
publications  should  be  the  systematic  effort  to  place  such  liter- 
ature in  the  libraries  throughout  the  world. 

Thirdly:  As  the  educational  magazines  of  the  United  States 
have  proved  an  effective  agency  for  spreading  the  knowledge  of 


272  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

international  events,  so  the  educational  magazines  of  every  coun- 
try could  be  enlisted  for  this  purpose.  The  secretary  of  the  Amer- 
ican School  Peace  League  has  been  asked  to  write  articles  by 
the  editors  of  several  European  educational  journals,  and  has  re- 
sponded as  far  as  time  permitted.  To  do  this  work  systematically 
and  thoroughly,  as  its  importance  would  justify,  direct  concen- 
trated effort  should  be  given  to  reaching  the  educational  maga- 
zines of  the  world. 

It  was  suggested  to  the  secretary  in  Europe  that  an  international 
educational  magazine  would  fill  an  important  need.  The  crea- 
tion of  this  as  well  as  the  specific  methods  of  enlisting  the  maga- 
zines, would  depend  on  the  future  development  of  the  general 
plan.  In  some  countries,  however,  other  journals  might  also  prove 
of  great  use  in  spreading  the  international  idea.  Mr.  John  Bar- 
rett, for  example,  director  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  gener- 
ously consented  to  print  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Pan  American  Union 
an  article  on  the  American  School  Peace  League,  this  article  to  be 
printed  in  Spanish  as  well  as  in  English.  It  would  probably 
require  only  a  request  to  have  similar  articles  printed  in  the 
educational  journals  of  Central  and  South  America,  which  are  for 
the  most  part  issued  by  the  government. 

Fourthly:  Many  activities  are  now  carried  on  in  the  educa- 
tional field  which  tend  to  bring  about  international  acquaintance. 
The  exchange  of  university  professors  and  public  school  teachers 
is  one  of  the  most  far-reaching  devices  for  developing  international 
friendliness  and  goodwill.  The  exchange  of  pupils,  carried  on 
by  a  strong  organization  having  offices  in  France,  Germany  and 
England,  is  another  method  of  promoting  the  same  object;  and 
if  the  plans  of  Dr.  Ernst  Richard  in  this  country  are  carried  out, 
we  shall  have  a  pupil  exchange  between  this  country  and  Germany. 
International  correspondence  among  school  children  has  already 
proved  its  value,  not  only  as  instruction  in  language  but  also  in 
cementing  international  friendships.  The  writing  of  international 
prize  essays,  relating  to  phases  of  internationalism,  carried  on 
under  the  auspices  of  the  American  School  Peace  League,  which 
has  opened  the  contest  to  the  pupils  of  the  United  States  and 
Europe,  can  have  but  the  effect  of  instilling  into  the  minds  of  the 
young  contestants  a  feeling  of  equality  and  common  responsibility. 


ANDREWS  273 

All  these  activities  should  be  stimulated  and  promoted  by  a 
central  organizing  force. 

Fifthly:  In  the  course  of  a  year,  numerous  educational  inter- 
national congresses  are  held,  attended  by  large  numbers  of  educa- 
tors from  different  countries.  At  many  of  these  congresses,  a 
discussion  of  international  cooperation  would  not  only  be  consist- 
ent but  welcome.  The  difficulty  in  placing  this  subject  on  the 
program  lies  in  the  lack  of  appropriate  speakers,  or  in  the  inaccess- 
ibility of  getting  such  to  take  part  in  the  discussion.  To  take 
advantage  of  reaching  at  one  time  many  teachers  of  different 
nationalities,  a  list  of  speakers  should  be  arranged  and  plans  made 
to  secure  their  services. 

Sixthly:  To  promote  international  standards  in  education  has 
long  been  one  of  the  objects  of  advanced  educators,  as  is  illustra- 
ted by  the  holding  of  international  educational  congresses.  The 
appointment  by  the  National  Education  Association  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Cooperation  with  Educational  Organizations  in  Other 
Countries  represents  a  significant  endeavor  to  study  the  matter 
of  international  standards;  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  this  Com- 
mittee will  report  on  its  work  at  the  coming  convention  of  the 
Association. 

The  most  important  subject,  however,  for  teaching  interna- 
tional solidarity,  and  one  which  admits  of  treatment,  according 
to  uniform  underlying  principles,  is  the  subject  of  history.  So 
much  depends  on  the  interpretation  of  human  action  and  the 
lessons  gained  thereby,  that  no  time  should  be  lost  in  making  an 
effort  to  bring  about  an  international  standard  in  the  teaching 
of  history.  Through  this  subject  alone,  common  sentiment  can 
be  developed  among  the  coming  generations  of  all  nations,  which 
will  recognize  the  efficiency  of  judicial  and  legislative  measures 
in  international  relations. 

To  develop  all  these  activities,  some  central  international 
organization  should  be  formed  with  regularly  established  depart- 
ments, each  of  which  to  be  responsible  for  one  of  the  six  lines  of 
work  described  above. 

The  American  School  Peace  League  has  taken  the  initial  steps 
in  the  organization  of  an  International  Council,  to  be  composed 


274  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

of  two  representatives  of  each  nation,  which  shall  have  full  charge 
of  the  work  of  the  six  departments.  The  plan  of  the  League  in- 
volves the  naming  of  two  members  of  the  Council  to  represent 
the  United  States,  and  the  selection  of  two  representatives  from 
each  of  the  other  nations.  One  Councillor  from  each  nation  shall 
be  selected  for  one  year  and  the  other  for  two  years.  Thereafter 
all  Councillors  shall  serve  for  two  years  and  shall  be  elected  by  the 
Council  itself.  The  Councillors  shall  elect  from  among  themselves 
a  President,  Secretary,  Treasurer,  and  an  Executive  Committee 
of  five,  including  the  President,  Secretary,  and  Treasurer,  which 
shall  appoint  the  heads  of  each  of  the  six  departments.  As  soon 
as  Councillors  representing  six  nations  have  been  secured,  the  In- 
ternational Council  shall  be  declared  constituted  and  shall  pro- 
ceed to  its  own  organization.  Until  this  time,  one  of  the  Coun- 
cillors from  the  United  States  shall  act  as  temporary  secretary. 

The  response  from  Europe  has  been  most  favorable.  Already 
we  may  count  on  France,  Germany,  England,  Sweden,  Austria, 
Belgium,  Italy,  and  probably  Holland,  Switzerland,  Denmark, 
Russia,  and  Japan;  while  it  all  probability,  many  of  the  Central 
and  South  American  countries  will  join  the  Council. 

Through  the  departments  of  Speakers,  Press,  and  Publications 
the  work  of  the  State  branches  should  be  stimulated  and  unified. 
These  branches,  however,  must  maintain  their  own  organization, 
and  the  Secretary  should  be  provided  with  adequate  funds  to 
pay  for  printing,  postage,  expressage,  clerical  services  and  travel- 
ing expenses.  At  the  present  time,  there  are  twenty-one  secre- 
taries who  have  volunteered  their  services  for  this  work. 

Moreover,  there  is  work  of  a  specific  technical  character  which 
should  be  undertaken  by  the  League  at  an  early  date.  The  work 
of  the  History  Committee  should  be  continued,  a  model  course 
of  study  developed,  and  a  text-book  of  United  States  history 
written  which  will  lay  emphasis  on  the  constructive  factors  in  the 
development  of  our  country,  and  these  factors  will  include  the 
social  and  industrial  life  of  our  people. 

The  League  is  organized  on  the  supposition  that  every  teacher, 
upon  enrolling  as  a  member,  becomes  a  volunteer  worker,  and 
extends  the  influence  of  the  League  in  his  immediate  sphere.  No 


HULL  275 

membership  dues  are,  therefore,  exacted  from  the  teachers,  so  that 
the  work  of  the  League  must  be  carried  forward  through  the  in- 
come of  an  endowment  or  annual  subsidies,  I  wish  these  were 
large  enough  to  enlist  the  interest  and  encourage  the  efforts  of 
this  vast  army  of  unpaid  peace  workers,  who  have  the  power  of 
instilling  the  principle  of  goodwill  into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of 
life. 

Chairman  Abbott:  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  calling  on  Prof. 
William  I.  Hull.  The  subject  of  his  paper  is  "The  Abolition  of 
Trial  by  Battle." 

THE   ABOLITION   OF   TRIAL   BY   BATTLE 

WILLIAM   I.   HULL 

When  Clio,  Muse  of  History,  shall  take  up  her  pen  to  record 
the  story  of  the  new  peace  movement  which  is  the  glory  of  our 
twentieth  century,  she  will  write  that  this  story,  like  that  of  the 
development  of  law  within  nations,  is  a  story  of  the  substitution 
of  organized  reason  and  right  for  anarchic  violence  and  might. 
Her  eyes,  farther-seeing  than  ours,  will  discern  a  series  of  remark- 
able resemblances  between  the  abolition  of  trial  by  battle  and  the 
substitution  of  law  within  nations,  and  the  abolition  of  trial  by 
battle  and  the  substitution  of  law  between  nations.  Even  now, 
in  the  midst  of  this  evolution,  complex  and  of  absorbing  interest 
as  it  is,  we  may  discern  a  number  of  those  resemblances;  and,  since 
we  have  no  surer  light  for  the  pathway  of  the  future  than  that 
which  shines  from  the  lamp  of  experience  in  the  past,  it  will  be 
the  attempt  of  this  brief  paper  to  signalize  some  of  them.  May 
they,  like  light-houses  along  some  rock  bound  coast,  send  forth 
their  beams  to  guide  and  cheer  those  mariners  on  the  world's 
ships  of  state  who  are  voyaging  in  search  of  assured  international 
peace  and  justice. 

I.  Those  French  philosophers  of  the  eighteenth  century  who 
sought  to  prove  that  mankind's  golden  age  lies  in  remote  antiquity 
were  grievously  mistaken.  All  history  and  all  science  are  against 
this  assumption,  and  show  us  that  man's  true  golden  age  is  with  us 


276  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

now  and  stretches  on  before  us  to  the  illimitable  horizon  of  human 
progress.  Early  man  lived  a  miserable,  fearful  and  brutish  life. 
Faustrecht,  fist-right,  the  law  of  the  strong  arm  and  the  big  stick, 
ruled  in  the  afifairs  of  men.  This  was  true  of  our  Teutonic  ances- 
tors when  history  first  dawns  upon  them  in  their  forest  homes  in 
Germany.  Their  fount  of  justice  was  the  judgment  and  deed 
of  each  individual;  every  freeman  or  free-necked  man," whose 
long  hair  floated  over  a  neck  that  had  never  bent  to  a  lord,"  was 
the  ''weaponed  man,"  who  possessed  the  right  of  private  war  and 
exercised  that  right  in  the  avenging  of  his  wrongs. 

The  nations  of  the  earth,  until  quite  recent  times,  were  like 
primitive  men  in  their  relations  with  each  other.  Every  free 
and  independent  nation,  which  had  never  abdicated  its  sovereignty 
to  an  international  court,  which  girt  itself  round  with  armaments 
on  land  and  sea,  possessed  the  equal  right  of  doing  battle  with  its 
neighbors  and,  rejecting  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  mere  man, 
appealed  to  the  justice  of  Mars  or  Odin  for  the  settlement  of  its 
differences. 

2.  When  human  life  became  valuable  to  someone  other  than  its 
possessor,  the  right  of  private  warfare  to  the  death  was  restricted 
by  the  law  of  retaliation  {Lex  talionis),  which  permitted  only 
"an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,"  and  thus  stopped 
the  course  of  the  blood  feud  this  side  of  death. 

It  is  rare  for  a  victorious  nation  to  exact  as  the  spoils  of  a  suc- 
cessful war  only  those  territories,  goods  or  chattels  which  served 
as  the  original  cause  of  the  war,  or  to  take  from  the  vanquished  only 
that  which  the  victor  claimed  it  had  lost.  But  in  the  eighteenth 
century  the  theory  of  the  balance  of  power  arose  to  prevent  the 
utter  annihilation  of  the  vanquished  state;  and  through  the  proc- 
esses known  as  retorsion,  reprisal,  and  pacific  blockade,  inter- 
national law  has  sought  to  modify  the  blood  feud  between  nations 
by  a  species  of  international  lex  talionis. 

3.  In  primitive  times,  when  blood  relationship  was  the  basis 
of  state  and  church  and  social  life,  every  outrage  was  held  to  have 
been  done  by  all  who  were  linked  by  blood  to  the  doer  of  it,  and 
every  crime  to  all  who  were  related  to  its  victim.  Hence,  entire 
communities  and  successive  generations  were  involved  in  the  com- 


HULL  277 

mon  ruin  resulting  from  the  evil  deed  of  a  single  doer.  When  the 
territorial  tie  superseded  that  of  kinship  in  Anglo-Saxon  England, 
the  custom  of  Frankpledge,  or  Frithborh,  enforced  collective  respon- 
sibility for  the  crimes  committed  by  an  individual. 

Modern  governments  in  their  strife  with  each  other  have  ap- 
pealed to  the  tie  of  common  citizenship  and  summoned  forth  the 
workers  from  counting-house,  field  and  workshop,  to  be  offered  up 
as  "food  for  powder"  in  many  a  valley  of  death,  where  it  was  not 
theirs  to  reason  why,  theirs  but  to  do  and  die,  in  a  quarrel  not  of 
their  own  making,  but  the  result  of  another's  crime  or  blunder. 

4.  When  the  family  grew  into  the  tribe,  responsibility  for  crime 
and  its  punishment  was  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  family,  as 
family  responsibility  had  superseded  that  of  the  individual,  and 
the  tribal  law  replaced,  in  theory,  both  family  feud  and  private 
warfare.  The  lives  and  limbs  of  warriors  became  too  valuable  in 
intertribal  warfare  to  be  wasted  in  strife  within  the  tribe;  hence, 
a  system  of  money  compensation,  instead  of  death  and  retaliation, 
was  enforced  as  the  punishment  of  crime  within  the  tribe.  A 
tribal  code  of  morality  arose,  which  taught  that  while  fraud  and 
violence  were  legitimate  and  praiseworthy  weapons  against  other 
tribesmen,  honesty  and  justice  should  be  practised  towards  one's 
fellows. 

Modern  nations  advanced  to  the  stage  of  compensation  and 
tribal  morality  in  their  dealings  with  each  other,  and  agreed  that 
while  money  damages  should  be  offered  to  some  nations,  and  trea- 
ties of  arbitration  and  arbitral  courts  should  be  entered  into  with 
those  same  nations,  "defiance  fell  and  bloody  war"  were  alone 
possible  or  desirable  with  others. 

5.  When  the  tribe  grew  into  the  nation,  under  the  growing 
influence  of  mutual  interests,  it  came  to  be  recognized  that  a  wrong 
done  to  an  individual  was  something  in  which  the  entire  com- 
munity had  a  common  interest,  and  was  really  a  crime  committed 
against  the  State.  The  king's  peace,  and  with  the  growth  of 
democracy,  the  peace  of  the  commonwealth,  became  a  reality 
which  was  not  to  be  broken  with  impunity  by  individual's  attack 
upon  individual,  or  even  by  an  individual's  or  family's  attempt 
to  punish  such  attack.     Public  guardians  of  the  peace  were  ap- 


278  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

pointed  to  preserve  the  peace  which  was  the  public's  due,  and  the 
public  itself  punished  or  redressed  private  wrongs. 

With  a  growing  perception  of  the  solidarity  of  nations,  and  a 
realization  that  benefits  and  injuries  experienced  by  one  member 
of  the  family  of  nations  are  shared  in  common  by  the  others,  there 
is  a  growing  belief  that  the  true  motto  for  international  relations 
should  be  ''All  for  each,  and  each  for  all."  Already,  the  ban  of 
international  law  has  been  placed  on  treaties  which  promise  inter- 
vention on  the  part  of  one  state  in  the  domestic  difficulties  of 
another;  and  treaties  of  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  which 
couple  the  nations  together  to  give  chase  in  pairs  or  triplets  against 
the  ** enemy"  are  being  denounced  by  twentieth  century  Wash- 
ingtons  who  condemn  such  entangling  alliances  on  grounds  both 
of  national  welfare  and  of  international  solidarity. 

6.  The  evolution  from  the  individual's  right  to  avenge  his 
wrongs  by  his  own  right  arm,  to  the  duty  of  the  state  to  preserve 
the  peace  and  administer  justice  by  peaceful  means,  was  long  and 
slow;  for  the  old  freeman's  fistright  was  hard  to  down.  The  state 
compromised  with  it,  admitted  it  in  certain  cases,  threw  formal- 
ities around  it,  and  dignified  it  with  the  name  of  "trial"  by  battle. 
When  their  crude  means  of  securing  evidence  had  been  used  with- 
out avail,  the  mediaeval  men,  in  despair  of  reaching  a  practical 
conclusion  by  judicial  means,  reverted  to  the  barbarism  which 
lay  just  beneath  their  skins  and  resorted  to  the  primitive  law  of 
force.  This  descent  was  softened  by  the  sophistry  which  under- 
lay the  ordeals  of  fire  and  water,  namely,  that  God  would  inter- 
vene and  send  victory  in  the  combat  to  perch  upon  the  banner 
of  the  innocent.  In  the  edict  of  Gundobald  of  Burgundy,  which 
established  trial  by  battle  among  the  Burgundians  in  501  A.D., 
this  philosophy  was  implied  in  the  questions:  "Is  it  not  true  that 
the  event  both  of  national  wars  and  of  private  combats  is  directed 
by  the  judgment  of  God?  And  does  not  Providence  award  the 
victory  to  the  juster  cause?" 

Even  ecclesiastical  courts  preferred  this  appeal  to  Mars  rather 
than  one  to  the  Prince  of  Peace,  and  clung  to  their  right  of  trial 
by  battle.  In  a  monastic  charter  of  1008  A.D.,  we  find  the  words: 
"We  give  to  God  and  St.  Denis  the  law  of  the  duel."     About  the 


HULL  279 

same  time,  in  Spain,  two  knightly  champions  fought  out  for  their 
clerical  clients  the  question  as  to  which  of  two  rituals  was  accept- 
able to  God.  Two  and  a  half  centuries  later,  when  St.  Louis 
prohibited  trial  by  battle  within  his  own  domains,  the  prior  of 
one  of  his  own  monasteries  protested  against  this  violation  of 
vested  interests. 

This  convenient  device  and  its  plausible  justification  were 
applied  in  the  relations  between  nations,  and  are  only  now  being 
effectually  ousted  in  theory  and  practice.  When  the  Albigensian 
Crusaders  stood  before  the  walls  of  Beziers,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  their  ecclesiastical  leader  urged  them  to  the 
slaughter  of  the  heretics  with  the  words:  "Slay  on,  slay  on 
God  will  know  his  own."  At  the  siege  of  Damascus,  during 
the  Second  Crusade  against  the  Saracens,  a  lofty  crucifix  was 
erected  at  the  principal  gate  of  the  city,  and  the  bishop,  attended 
by  his  clergy,  laid  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament  before  the  image 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  prayed  that  the  Son  of  God  would  defend  his 
servants  and  vindicate  his  truth.  When  the  Holy  Sepulchre  was 
conquered  amidst  streams  of  human  blood,  and  the  Kingdom  of 
Jerusalem  established,  trial  by  battle  became  one  of  the  corner 
stones  of  its  system  of  injustice.  Six  centuries  later.  Sir  William 
Blackstone,  the  great  historian  of  English  jurisprudence,  declared 
that  ''war  is  an  appeal  to  the  God  of  hosts  to  punish  such  infrac- 
tions of  public  faith  as  are  committed  by  one  independent  people 
against  another."  In  the  next  century.  Prince  Bismarck  declared 
repeatedly  his  belief  in  a  God  of  battles  who  decides  international 
disputes  by  casting  his  iron  dice;"  and  down  into  this  twentieth 
century  of  enlightenment,  even  civilized  nations  have  acted  on  the 
dictum  of  that  early  Berserker  who  declared  that  it  "is  much  fitter 
to  contend  with  swords  than  with  words."  The  eflScacy  of  the 
ballot  has  not  yet  destroyed  the  nations'  reliance  upon  the  bullet; 
courts  must  still  struggle  for  survival  with  the  cutlass;  and  inter- 
national Justice  must  still  sometimes  be  portrayed  as  grasping 
the  sword  without  the  bandage  or  the  scales. 

There  are  those  who,  still  championing  "the  right  divine  of 
kings  to  govern  wrong,"  are  champions  still  of  the  divine  right  of 
war  to  perpetuate  the  wrong.    General  von  Deimling,  of  Germany, 


28o  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

for  example,  is  reported  recently  to  have  said:  "Perpetual  peace 
and  the  movement  in  favor  of  its  establishment  constitute  a  genuine 
danger.  Nobody  fights  now  for  the  pleasure  of  fighting,  but  for 
honor's  sake.  When  an  affair  of  honor  has  to  be  settled,  it  is  the 
sword  in  the  last  analysis,  which  must  decide  the  matter.  We 
must  therefore  oppose  the  idea  of  peace,  for  it  is  a  thing  that  would 
enervate  the  nations."  While  from  the  land  of  Ambassador  Bryce 
and  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  later  come  the  strangely  discordant 
Berseker  wail:  "It  is  still  true,  as  it  was  a  century  ago,  that, 
take  it  all  in  all  a  ship  of  the  line  is  the  most  honorable  thing  which 
man  as  a  gregarious  animal  has  produced."  Truly  some  twentieth 
century  Cervantes  is  sorely  needed  to  launch  a  new  Don  Quixote 
with  its  all-conquering  laughter  against  the  outworn  chivalry  of 
barbarous  days  which  has  revived  in  these  grotesque  forms  of 
barrack  philosophy  and  dreadnoughtitis. 

Sir  William  Blackstone's  excuse  for  his  definition  of  war  was 
much  like  the  mediaeval  man's  justification  of  trial  by  battle, 
namely,  that  "neither  state  has  any  superior  jurisdiction  to  re- 
sort to  upon  earth  for  justice."  But  now,  thank  God,  since  the 
First  Hague  Conference  that  lamentable  fact  is  no  longer  true, 
and  international  justice  is  moving  rapidly  along  the  same  path 
whic|i  enabled  national  justice  to  abolish  trial  by  battle  between 
individual   citizens. 

7.  In  the  early  administration  of  trial  by  battle  within  the 
nation,  the  two  parties  to  a  dispute  were  themselves  called  to  the 
combat,  the  theory  in  its  logical  conclusion  being  that  neither 
weakness  nor  age  could  count  against  the  innocent,  since  God 
was  on  their  side.  But  gradually  the  custom  of  securing  cham- 
pions for  the  feeble  arose  and  developed  into  the  shameless  employ- 
ment of  professional  pugilists  from  men  who  made  a  profession 
of  letting  them  out  for  hire.  To  the  victor  went  the  spoils  of  the 
vanquished;  hence  these  champions  went  abroad  in  quest  of  com- 
bats which  would  bring  them  fortune  as  well  as  fame. 

In  the  international  administration  of  trial  by  battle,  it  has  been 
by  no  means  unusual  for  a  standing  army  of  professional  soldiers 
to  take  the  place  of  volunteer  "defenders  of  the  right,"  and  even 
for  mercenary  troops  from  foreign  lands,  such  as  the  free  lances  in 


HULL  281 

European  wars  and  the  Hessians  in  our  own  Revolution,  to  be 
brought  in  to  sustain  a  declining  faith  in  the  intervening  justice 
of  the  God  of  battles.  It  would  seem,  too,  that  the  present  eager 
competition  in  the  building  of  dreadnoughts  and  super-dread- 
noughts is  in  line  with  reliance  upon  sturdy  champions  rather  than 
on  the  justice  of  one's  cause,  and  is  indeed  a  practical  application 
of  the  familiar  though  not  all  too  trustful  motto,  "Trust  in  God — 
but  keep  your  powder  dry." 

8.  To  our  English  ancestors  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  cen- 
turies however,  there  was  something  alien  and  dangerous  in  the 
favorite  Norman  device  of  trial  by  battle.  It  is  probable  that 
their  Teutonic  ancestors  had  used  it,  but  the  church  and  advancing 
civilization  had  abolished  it  in  England,  and  when  the  Norman 
conquest  introduced  it  they  denounced  it  as  a  "barbarous  foreign 
custom  devised  for  the  purposes  of  tyranny.  William  I,  to  con- 
ciliate the  English,  permitted  them  to  decline  trial  by  battle  and 
to  choose  an  ordeal  of  fire  or  water;  and  he  and  his  successors 
hedged  in  the  judicial  combat  by  so  many  rules  and  formalities 
that  it  required  an  able-minded,  as  well  as  an  able-bodied,  man  to 
appeal  to  it  successfully. 

When  the  Hague  Conferences  restricted  warfare  on  land  and 
sea  by  a  great  code  of  regulations,  thus  "canalizing"  the  activ- 
ities of  belligerents  in  defense  of  peaceful  neutrals,  a  great  cry 
of  indignation  went  up  from  the  military  and  naval  delegates, 
that  in  future  wars  they  would  be  so  cribbed,  cabined,  and  confined 
by  rules  and  regulations  that  they  would  have  left  but  little  space 
or  time  in  which  to  fight.  It  is  instructive  also  to  note  that  when 
the  Second  Hague  Conference  provided  that  no  future  wars 
should  begin  without  a  previous  declaration  of  war,  a  Chinese 
delegate  arose  and  blandly  inquired  what  would  happen  in  case 
the  nation  against  whom  the  declaration  had  been  launched 
should  refuse  to  accept  the  challenge.  Of  course  his  inquiry  was 
greeted  by  inextinguishable  laughter;  but  that  Chinaman  not 
only  recalled  the  concession  which  the  English  exacted  from  Wil- 
liam the  Conqueror,  but  he  became  the  prophet  of  the  future  when 
war  drums  throb  no  longer  and  battle  flags  are  furled  in  the 
jury  box  of  nations,  the  tribunal  of  the  world. 


282  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

9.  The  Conqueror's  successors  did  not  continue  to  grant  to 
all  their  English  subjects  exemption  from  trial  by  battle;  but  the 
growth  of  peaceful  industry  within  the  towns  brought  with  it 
increasing  wealth  and  political  power,  and  during  the  twelfth 
century  they  purchased  from  their  Norman  lords  the  coveted 
exemption  from  trial  by  battle,  and  decided  their  disputes  by 
means  of  the  old  English  trial  by  oath,  or  compurgation. 

The  marvelous  growth  of  economic  internationalism,  with  its 
commercial,  financial,  and  industrial  ties  that  bind  the  world 
together,  has  caused  international  trial  by  battle  to  be  increasingly 
frowned  upon  in  our  modern  time,  and  has  given  great  impulse 
to  mediation  and  international  commissions  of  inquiry  which  may 
be  regarded  as  The  Hague  Conferences'  equivalents  for  the  old 
compurgation, 

10.  The  rural  tenants  of  the  Norman  lords  looked  with  longing 
eyes  upon  the  exemption  from  trial  by  battle  which  had  been  won 
by  their  English  fellows  within  the  city  walls.  At  last  a  farmer 
by  the  name  of  Kebel  was  subjected  to  trial  by  battle,  and,  al- 
though notoriously  guiltless  of  the  crime  with  which  he  was 
charged,  the  combat  went  against  him  and  he  was  hung  just  out- 
side the  gate  of  St.  Edmondsbury.  The  taunts  of  the  townsmen 
looking  on  from  the  walls  aroused  the  victim's  fellow  farmers  to  a 
realizing  sense  of  their  condition.  ''Had  Kebel  been  a  dweller 
within  the  borough,"  said  the  burgesses,  "he  would  have  got  his 
acquittal  from  the  oaths  of  his  neighbors  as  our  liberty  is." 
Thereupon  the  farmers  demanded  the  same  liberty  and  received 
it  from  their  lord,  the  abbott;  and  the  farmers  throughout  England 
slowly  followed  their  example. 

We  have  seen  in  our  own  day  how,  when  nineteen  members  of 
the  family  of  nations,  indifferently  absent  from  The  Hague  Con- 
ference of  1899,  were  given  the  chance  to  attend  the  Conference 
of  1907,  they  eagerly  adhered  to  its  "liberty"  of  avoiding  trial  by 
battle.  We  have  seen  also  how  infectious  has  been  the  fever  of 
negotiating  treaties  of  arbitration,  133  of  these  pacific  agencies 
for  settling  disputes  having  been  agreed  upon  since  1899;  and  we 
have  seen  how,  within  nine  years,  nine  cases  have  been  settled  by 
the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  established  at  The  Hague — 


HULL  283 

Great  Britain,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  Japan,  Norway,  Sweden, 
Mexico,  Guatemala,  and  Venezuela,  having  followed  the  beneficent 
example  of  our  own  Republic  in  submitting  disputes  to  that  more 
than  imperial  tribunal. 

11.  The  Norman  lords  continued  for  a  time  with  "sword  and 
lance  to  arbitrate  the  swelling  difference  of  their  settled  hate;" 
but  gradually  the  kings  began  to  "hate  the  dire  aspect  of  civil 
wounds  ploughed  up  with  neighbors  swords,"  and  greatly  reduced 
the  Norman  custom  of  trial  by  battle,  lest  it  should  "wake  our 
peace,  which  in  our  country's  cradle  draws  the  sweet  infant 
breath  of  gentle  sleep."  It  was  retained  for  certain  classes  of 
crimes  and  disputes;  for  example,  it  was  considered  the  only  hon- 
orable method  of  answering  the  accusation  of  felony,  the  worst  and 
basest  of  crimes;  and  it  was  applied  to  debtors  who  disobeyed  the 
sheriff's  order  to  pay  their  debts. 

We  have  seen  how,  in  recent  years,  the  sovereigns  of  the  world 
have  begun  to  hate  the  dire  aspect  of  international  war,  and  to 
fear  the  growing  burden  of  preparation  for  trial  by  battle;  how 
they  have  met  at  The  Hague  to  devise  peaceful  means  of  settling 
their  disputes;  and  how  they  have  negotiated  numerous  treaties 
of  arbitration  and  submitted  a  growing  number  of  disputes  to 
arbitral  tribunals.  In  1889,  it  was  thought  that  only  "judicial" 
questions  could  be  successfully  submitted  to  arbitration;  in  1907, 
it  was  thought  that  questions  of  "national  honor"  should  still 
be  submitted  to  the  Norman  knighthood's  "honorable"  trial  by 
battle,  while  the  Porter  proposition — great  step  in  advance  though 
it  was — still  recognized  trial  by  battle  as  an  ultimate  means  of 
collecting  contractual  indebtedness  in  case  arbitration  should 
fail. 

12.  During  the  reign  of  King  Stephen,  when  England  underwent 
a  reaction  in  many  phases  of  her  life  to  the  violence  and  brutal- 
ities of  fuedal  anarchy,  the  barons  by  the  might  of  their  mailed 
fist  beat  down  wherever  they  could  the  nascent  forms  of  civil 
justice,  and  restored  trial  by  battle.  Although  the  miseries  of  the 
time — as  recorded  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  which  comes  to 
a  despairing  end  in  lamenting  the  terrible  evils  it  records — must 
have  been  grievous  indeed  for  that  generation  of  Englishmen  to 


284  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

endure,  they  served  as  a  most  useful  object  lesson  and  proved 
a  great  incentive  to  the  adoption  of  the  great  legal  and  pacific 
means  of  settling  disputes  which  Henry  II  was  soon  to  usher  in. 

The  Spanish-American,  the  Boer,  and  the  Russo-Japanese  wars 
were  a  sad  surprise  to  the  world  which  had  witnessed  the  rise  of 
the  First  Hague  Conference;  but  they  were  at  least  a  revelation 
of  the  imminence  of  warfare  in  the  most  advanced  of  nations,  and 
a  reminder  of  the  ferocity  and  futility  of  trial  by  battle  as  prac- 
ticed even  by  the  most  civilized  of  nations.  They  doubtless 
gave  impetus,  too,  to  the  progress  in  the  amicable  settlement  of 
international  disputes  which  has  made  the  last  few  years  so  illus- 
trious. 

13.  The  reign  of  Henry  II  witnessed  the  rise  of  trial  by  jury, 
that  unrivalled  palladium  of  English  liberty — unrivalled,  for  it  is 
older  than  Parliament  itself,  and  bears  within  it  the  principle 
of  representative  government  as  well  as  the  bulwark  of  civil 
liberty.  It  began  with  the  jury  of  inquest,  which  was  designed 
merely  to  procure  information;  developed  into  the  jury  of  accusa- 
tion or  presentments,  or  grand  jury,  as  we  call  it,  whose  function 
it  was  to  present  criminals  for  trial;  and  ended  with  the  jury 
par  excellence,  the  trial  jury,  or  the  petty  jury  as  it  is,  apparently, 
unworthily  called.  This  great  juristic  invention  had  existed  in 
early  times  among  the  Franks  and  other  Teutons  on  the  Conti- 
nent, but  it  had  been  overwhelmed  by  the  spread  of  the  Roman 
and  Canon  Law,  and  had  practically  disappeared  from  the  Ger- 
man Fatherland.  In  England,  however,  it  rose  again  and  became 
one  of  England's  choicest  gifts  to  the  civilization  of  the  world. 

The  rise  of  jury  trial  on  the  international  stage  vividly  recalls 
many  incidents  connected  with  its  rise  within  the  nations.  The 
Anglo-American  people  have  had  most  to  do  with  laying  the  found- 
ation of  the  international  jury  trial,  even  as  the  English  gave  the 
trial  jury  to  the  municipal  jurisprudence  of  the  nations.  Inter- 
national commissions  of  inquiry  may  find  their  prototype  in  the 
jury  of  inquest.  The  international  jury  of  presentment  has  not 
yet  been  evolved,  but  Professor  de  Martens'  proposition  at  the 
Second  Hague  Conference  that  commissions  of  inquiry  shall  not 
only  seek  the  truth  about  a  controversy  and  publish  it  to  the  world. 


HULL  285 

but  shall  also  fix  the  responsibility  upon  the  blameworthy  nation, 
may  yet  develop  into  a  grand  jury,  which  shall  bring  guilty  na- 
tions to  the  bar  of  international  justice.  The  arbitral  character 
of  the  early  jury,  impanneling  as  it  did  an  equal  number  of  rep- 
resentatives of  each  litigant,  together  with  others  to  act  as  umpires, 
has  been  preserved  in  the  equivalent  features  of  the  Permanent 
Court  of  Arbitration.  The  early  jury  was  composed  of  both 
witnesses  and  judges,  their  value  depending  largely  on  their  knowl- 
edge of  the  question  in  dispute,  hence  their  verdict  was  both  a 
partial  and  a  compromising  one;  the  final  separation  of  witnesses 
and  jurors  is  reflected  in  the  American  attempt  at  the  Second 
Hague  Conference — an  attempt  which  is  soon  bound  to  succeed 
to  establish  a  genuinely  permanent,  impartial  and  judicial  tribu- 
nal. 

Back  of  the  national  jury  lay  the  royal  power  of  the  king,  as 
opposed  to  the  independent  and  disintegrating  privileges  of  the 
feudal  barons,  while  the  jury  itself  represented  the  ''country" 
and  expressed  the  "country's"  verdict;  back  of  the  international 
jury  lies  the  power  of  the  family  of  nations,  as  opposed  to  the  ex- 
clusive sovereignty  of  independent  states,  while  behind  its  awards 
there  lies  the  greatest  power  in  all  this  world — the  power  of  inter- 
national public  opinion.  The  first  parties  to  jury  trial  within 
the  nation  were  probably  those  powers  which  were  almost  co- 
ordinate in  the  time  of  Henry  II  and  Thomas  Becket,  namely, 
the  English  church  and  the  English  state;  it  seems  eminently 
proper  that  modern  states,  of  equal  sovereignty,  but  refusing  in 
the  interest  of  justice  to  be  judges  in  their  own  cause,  should 
submit  their  disputes  to  the  international  jury.  The  first  class 
of  disputes  regularly  submitted  to  the  national  jury  had  to  do  with 
the  ownership  of  land;  disputes  over  international  boundary  lines 
have  been  among  the  first  to  be  submitted  to  special  arbitration 
and  to  the  Permanent  Court  as  well,  while  there  is  fair  promise 
that  the  new  Anglo-American  arbitration  treaty  and  the  Third 
Hague  Conference  will  assign  territorial  disputes  invariably  to 
an  international  jury.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
growing  out  of  the  fruitful  soil  of  English  law,  provided  for  the 
trial  by  jury  of  all  criminal  cases,  but  neglected  at  first  to  provide 


286  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  same  guarantee  for  civil  cases;  this  omission  nearly  caused  the 
rejection  of  the  Constitution  in  the  Virginia  Convention,  and  an 
amendment  was  adopted  which  provided  for  the  jury  trial  of  all 
civil  cases  of  the  value  of  twenty  dollars  or  more;  with  this  English 
and  American  precedent  to  reenforce  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and 
the  Porter  Proposition,  the  American  government  has  induced 
The  Hague  Conference  to  require  all  claims  of  contractual  indebt- 
edness to  be  brought  into  the  international  court. 

Jury  trial,  like  Parliament,  was  not  popular  at  first  with  the 
richer  freeholders  of  England,  and  they  purchased  immunity 
from  its  jurisdiction  in  considerable  numbers,  while  many  poorer 
freeholders  groaned  under  its  operation  until  its  virtues  appeared 
undoubted  and  supreme;  some  of  the  great  powers  of  our  time, 
notably  Germany,  have  needed  to  become  convinced  of  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  international  jury,  while  some  of  the  smaller  powers 
do  not  even  yet  yield  unquestioned  allegiance  to  this  sure  shield 
of  their  weakness.  But  it  is  growing  more  and  more  to  be  real- 
ized that,  like  the  national  jury,  the  international  jury  also  is  a 
protection  of  the  rights  of  the  weak  against  the  tyranny  of  the 
strong;  and  that,  as  the  national  jury  is  a  protection  of  national 
justice  against  the  violence  and  vindictiveness  of  individuals  or 
mobs,  so  is  the  international  jury  a  protection  of  international 
justice  against  the  ignorance,  jealousy  and  prejudice  of  nation 
towards  nation. 

14.  The  year  1215  was  an  ever  memorable  one  in  world  history 
for  it  saw  the  signing  of  Magna  Charta  and  the  meeting  of  the 
Fourth  Lateran  Council.  The  first  guaranteed,  among  other 
liberties,  the  great  liberty  of  trial  by  jury;  and  the  second  prohib- 
ited the  church  from  lending  divine  sanction  to  trial  by  ordeals, 
thus  making  the  choice  a  necessary  one  between  trial  by  jury  and 
trial  by  battle,  and  discrediting  the  Christianized  Odin  or  Thor 
who  was  supposed  to  preside  over  trial  by  battle  and  trials  by 
ordeal  alike. 

The  Hague  Conferences  of  1899  and  1907  have  discredited  inter- 
national trial  by  battle  by  denouncing  warfare,  in  the  words  of 
Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant,  as  a  conflagration  and  com- 
missioning every  responsible  statesman  with  the  prime  duty  of 


HULL  287 

preventing  its  spread  and  of  putting  it  out.  The  year  191 5  will 
also  be  marked  by  two  ever  memorable  events,  the  meeting  of  the 
Third  Hague  Conference,  and  the  celebration  of  a  century  of  peace 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  their  mutual 
disarmament  on  three  thousand  miles  of  border-line.  May  these 
events,  like  those  of  seven  centuries  ago,  mark  a  great  advance  in 
the  permanent  and  universal  substitution  of  international  peace 
and  justice  for  the  iniquitous  and  unjust  trial  by  battle. 

15.  Among  the  priceless  gifts  that  our  Republic  owes  to  the 
Motherland  of  Great  Britain,  there  is  none  fairer  than  jury  trial 
and  the  courts  of  justice  in  which  it  is  enshrined.  These  are  im- 
bedded in  the  constitution  of  every  State  and  of  the  Union  itself, 
and  are  rightly  regarded  as  the  bulwark  of  justice,  the  palladium 
of  our  liberties.  The  time  came,  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago, 
when  our  forefathers  felt  that  they  could  no  longer  dwell  beneath 
the  imperial  sway  of  the  British  Parliament  and  of  King  George 
the  Third;  but  when  they  broke  the  political  ties  which  bound 
them  to  their  kinsman  beyond  the  sea,  they  carried  into  their 
new  constitution  Old  England's  juristic  triumph  of  trial  by  jury. 

In  view  of  this  great  historic  fact,  it  was  most  appropriate  that 
in  the  early  infancy  of  our  Republic,  in  the  year  1794,  the  United 
States,  negotiating  the  Jay  treaty,  with  its  arbitral  provisions, 
inaugurated  with  Great  Britain  that  series  of  international  jury 
trials,  which  in  the  form  of  arbitration,  have  made  the  succeeding 
century  supremely  illustrious. 

In  this  coronation  year  of  King  George  the  Fifth,  when  the  na- 
tions are  sending  to  the  new  sovereign  their  varied  tokens  of  good- 
will, no  fairer  gift  can  be  sent  to  him  by  our  Republic  than  that 
of  a  treaty  of  arbitration  which  shall  apply  to  every  dispute  which 
may  arise  between  our  nations  that  principle  of  peace  and  justice 
which,  received  from  England's  law,  has  been  enthroned  within 
our  American  courts  for  many  generations,  and  is  now  being 
crowned  within  the  courts  of  nations.  No  fairer  gift  can  be  made 
to  Britain's  people  and  the  world  than  such  a  bar,  which  shall 
forever  close  the  doors  of  the  Temple  of  Janus  and  forever  open 
those  of  the  Palace  of  Peace  at  The  Hague. 

In  these  days  of  great  and  increasing  armaments,  when  Horror 


288  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

sits  plumed  upon  the  crests  of  nations,  and  when  dreadful  deeds 
may  well  ensue — "nor  only  Paradise,  in  this  commotion,  but  the 
starry  cope  of  Heaven  perhaps,  or  all  the  elements  at  least  may  go 
to  wrack,  disturbed  and  torn  with  violence  of  this  conflict" — we 
may  well  give  thanks  that  "The  Eternal,  to  prevent  such  horrid 
fray,  hangs  forth  in  Heaven  his  golden  scales;"  and  that  the 
fiend  of  trial  by  battle,  looking  up,  beholds  these  golden  scales  of 
justice,  and  murmuring  flees,  while  with  him  flee  the  shades  of 
Night. 

Chairman  Abbott:  Mr.  Milton  Fairchild  has  been  carrying 
on  for  some  time  the  moral  instruction  of  our  youth,  and  he  will 
speak  upon  "Law  and  Order  and  International  Peace." 

LAW  AND  ORDER  AND  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 

MILTON   FAIRCHILD 

Many  a  strong  word  is  being  spoken  in  favor  of  popular  education 
in  the  cause  of  international  peace.  To  my  mind  it  is  essential 
that  this  education  deal  chiefly  with  the  youth  of  the  nations,  be- 
cause it  is  in  youth  that  the  personal  disposition  is  fixed  for  life 
by  experiences  and  by  the  ideals  that  fascinate  the  mind.  The 
spirit  of  the  fighting  bullying  boy  persists  through  manhood,  and 
war  appeals  to  such  a  man  as  heroic  and  as  having  the  elements 
of  largeness  and  greatness.  Men  of  this  fighting-hero  type  are 
more  numerous  throughout  the  woirld  than  those  who  love  peace 
when  indignation  is  aroused,  and  good  red  blood  rushes  to  the 
head  and  the  muscles  become  tense  with  anger.  The  natural 
man,  uneducated  in  the  cause  of  a  world  peace,  his  character 
fixed  in  youth  and  early  manhood,  is  the  unit  of  public  opinion. 
This  uneducated  public  opinion  will  force  the  hands  of  any  govern- 
ment, and  compel  war  when  serious  disputes  arise  between  the 
nations.  It  is  intelligent  distrust  of  pubHc  opinion  that  restrains 
the  world  from  international  arbitration  as  a  permanent  and  fixed 
policy.  If  Germany,  fully  prepared  for  war  with  England,  should 
say  "you  shall  not  do  what  you  intend  and  plan  to  do,"  would 
the  British  nation  be  capable  of  self-control?     Not  at  all.     The 


FAIRCHILD  289 

peace  cry  would  fall  upon  deaf  ears.  The  boy  scouts  would  all 
turn  soldiers.  The  God  of  war  would  be  the  controlling  spirit 
of  the  nation,  and  the  heroes  of  both  nations  would  be  the  victors 
in  the  bloody  battles  of  the  war.  It  is  folly  to  under-estimate 
the  native  instinct  in  the  men  of  any  nation  to  use  violence  and 
brute  force  as  the  final  arbiter  of  serious  differences  between  na- 
tions. This  instinct  of  the  beast  must  be  educated  out  of  them. 
The  boys  must  be  brought  up  right,  and  educated  to  believe  that 
war  is  an  ignoble  and  unintelligent  mode  of  settling  international 
disputes  and  of  upholding  the  national  honor.  We  must  do 
our  duty  by  our  American  youth  by  furnishing  an  adequate  edu- 
cation in  law  and  order  and  international  peace. 

The  extreme  importance  of  the  work  done  by  the  American 
School  Peace  League  is  the  strongest  possible  argument  for  strength- 
ening the  work  along  these  lines. 

Granted  that  education  of  the  youth  of  the  nation  in  the  bene- 
fits of  international  peace  is  of  prime  importance  to  the  cause, 
how  is  that  enlightenment  to  be  given?  It  is  this  work  of  national 
education  of  boys  and  girls  in  **law  and  order  and  International 
peace"  that  the  National  Institution  for  Moral  Instruction  wants 
to  help  do  as  its  service  to  the  cause.  We  have  found  a  way  in 
which  these  greater  national  interests  can  be  presented  to  youth 
with  telling  efifect.  Our  experiments  have  proved  that  there  is  a 
way  to  teach  in  our  American  public  schools  the  truth  about 
the  serious  side  of  life. 

If  the  facts  of  human  experience  are  presented  in  photographic 
lantern  slides  from  reality,  and  made  vivid,  realistic,  instinct 
with  human  interest  and  importance,  then  the  boys  and  girls 
are  intensely  interested  to  interpret  and  understand  these  facts 
of  the  real  world.  If  morals  are  presented  as  the  ''wisdom  of 
experience,"  and  the  experience  itself  given  as  the  fact  basis,  then 
morals  can  be  taught  effectively  in  public  schools. 

The  best  way  to  present  the  facts  of  life  is  in  photographs  from 
reality.  Why  not  make  up,  with  extreme  care  and  at  an  expense 
of  about  $5000,  an  illustrated  lesson  in  morals  on  the  title  "Law 
and  Order  and  International  Peace?"  Why  not  introduce  this 
stereopticon  lesson  into  the  regular  moral  instruction  of  public 


290  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

schools  throughout  the  nation?  The  plan  is  feasible  and  prac- 
tical. Within  the  last  two  months  fifty-five  grammar  schools 
of  Chicago  have  used  the  "Illustrated  Lesson  in  Morals"  which 
I  hold  in  my  hand,  entitled  "What  I  am  going  to  do  when  I  am 
grown  up,"  the  total  audience  being  about  22,000  boys  and  girls. 
Good  morals  will  be  taught  during  April  and  May  of  this  year 
to  fully  50,000  boys  and  girls  in  American  schools  by  means  of 
these  illustrated  lessons  which  we  furnished  in  lantern  slides  and 
texts.  It  is  possible  to  educate  the  boys  and  girls  in  every  high 
school  throughout  the  United  States  in  the  good  morals  of  law  and 
order  and  international  peace,  by  preparing  a  stereopticon  lesson 
on  this  topic,  duplicating  it  in  many  sets  of  lantern  slides,  and 
circulating  it  among  the  schools.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  National 
Institution  for  Moral  Instruction  to  do  this,  and  your  moral  and 
financial  support  is  asked  that  this  purpose  may  be  carried  out. 
There  might  be  extensive  cooperation  with  the  School  Peace 
League. 

What  should  be  the  scope  of  this  stereopticon  lesson?  It 
should  traverse,  with  a  wealth  of  detail,  the  simple  argument  that 
law  and  order  based  on  justice  are  essential  to  well  being  and 
achievement  in  the  school,  in  the  city  and  country  and  the  state, 
in  fact  throughout  the  nation  as  a  unit.  Then  it  should  reach  out 
to  the  moral  obligation  upon  all  to  support  law  and  order  based 
on  justice  throughout  the  world  that  human  beings  of  all  nations 
may  have  their  rights,  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  become  a 
reality. 

I  submit  the  following  outline  in  detail,  and  beg  your  help  in 
carrying  out  this  plan  of  peace  education  in  the  schools. 

The  Red  Cross  has  promised  to  cooperate  in  furnishing  photo- 
graphs. The  War  College  will  loan  the  use  of  the  Brady  photo- 
graphs of  the  Civil  War.  The  National  Geographical  Society 
will  help  by  supplying  such  photographs  as  it  has  bearing  on  the 
world  conditions.  The  peace  societies  can  help  with  photographs 
and  ideas.  Many  special  photographs  can  betaken,  and  the  whole 
text  prepared  with  great  care  for  the  education  of  youth  in  the 
ideal  of  world  peace. 


FAIRCHILD  291 

OUTLINE  FOR  ILLUSTRATED  LESSON  IN  MORALS  ON  TITLE  "lAW 
AND  ORDER  AND  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE"  BY  NATIONAL  INSTI- 
TUTION FOR  MORAL  INSTRUCTION 

Law  and  Order  in  Schools 

Assignment  of  seats  is  made  in  school  so  that  each  can  have 
his  own  things  ready  for  use. 

The  preservation  of  personal  property  rights  has  to  be  looked 
to  in  school. 

Protection  of  public  property  from  defacement  is  necessary. 

Quiet  must  be  preserved  so  that  each  can  have  a  chance  to  study. 

Classes  are  called  according  to  an  orderly  plan,  so  that  each 
has  its  discussion  of  the  lesson. 

All  these  regulations  are  carried  out  for  the  common  good,  that 
each  boy  and  girl  may  have  a  chance  to  learn  the  things  he  needs 
to  know. 

The  teacher  is  in  authority  to  see  that  this  law  and  this  order 
of  the  school  are  preserved. 

The  Board  of  Education  establishes  regulations  for  the  teacher 
to  carry  out. 

Disputes  among  scholars  are  settled  on  the  basis  of  personal 
rights  and  justice. 

The  law  and  order  and  peace  of  the  school  is  preserved  for  the 
benefit  of  all. 

Law  and  Order  in  the  City 

Above  the  city  is  the  State  law,  the  State  constitution,  the 
national  law  and  the  national  constitution. 

City  authorities  must  abide  by  these  and  enforce  them. 

There  are  city  ordinances,  for  health,  for  fire  protection,  for 
boulevards  and  parks,  for  good  morals  and  for  all  matters  of  com- 
mon good. 

The  Common  Council  creates  these  ordinances. 

The  City  ofl&cials  direct  their  carrying  out  and  enforce  them. 

Means  of  preserving  law  and  order:  The  ofl&cials,  the  police, 
the  citizens,  the  State  militia,  the  national  army. 

Result:     People  have  confidence  to  work,  to  build  homes  and 


292  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Stores  and  manufacturing  plants,  to  be  out  at  night,  and  to  pro- 
vide for  a  happy  life. 

All  disputed  points  are  settled  by  the  courts,  or  by  judges  and 
officials,  and  the  rights  of  each  are  preserved  under  the  law,  and 
according  to  what  is  natural  and  just. 

Law  and  Order  in  the  County 

The  county  is  the  unit  of  organization.  National  and  State 
laws  are  supreme  in  county.     County  officials  and  courts  exist. 

Adequate  means  of  preserving  law  and  order  are  provided. 

Results:  People  live  in  peace,  work  their  farms,  have  their 
rights  preserved  even  in  isolated  places,  and  are  free  to  provide 
for  a  happy  life. 

Law  and  Order  in  the  State 

The  national  Constitution  and  laws  take  first  place — State 
constitutions  have  to  conform.  State  legislatures  make  laws 
within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution.  State  officials  direct 
affairs  and  enforce  laws.  State  courts  decide  disputes.  State 
militia  preserve  order.     The  national  authority  is  back  of  all. 

Law  and  Order  in  the  Nation 

The  National  Constitution.  Congress  makes  the  national 
laws.  National  officials  carry  them  out  and  enforce  them. 
National  courts  decide  disputes.  National  army  preserves  obedi- 
ence and  peace.     Interstate  war  is  at  once  suppressed. 

Result:  people  are  at  peace  and  have  their  rights  throughout 
the  nation. 

Law  and  Order  throughout  the  World 

In  times  of  peace  the  rights  of  all  are  preserved  even  outside 
the  limits  of  the  nation. 

In  times  of  peace  there  are  international  agreements  and  treat- 
ies which  the  governments  uphold. 

But  there  is  no  provision  for  preserving  the  "peace  of  the 
world,"  and  nations  declare  war,  and  fight,  to  reach  a  settlement 
of  serious  disputes  by  force. 


FAIRCHILD  293 

War  sets  aside  justice  and  human  rights  as  the  basis  of  the  set- 
tlement. Even  when  both  sides  are  convinced  their  cause  is 
righteous,  it  is  force,  not  reason,  that  decides  the  issue. 

International  law  should  provide  a  court  of  justice  for  disputes 
between  nations,  because  the  common  welfare  demands  this. 
(a)  War  is  wasteful;  (b)  War  is  heart  breaking;  (c)  War  is  degen- 
erating; (d)  War  is  unworthy  of  human  beings. 

The  Peace  Movement 

The  international  consultations  held. 

The  peace  societies  at  work. 

The  peace  foundations  endowed. 

The  world-wide  business  and  friendships  established. 

The  increasing  inclusiveness  of  treaties. 

The  great  "Red  Cross"  for  the  alleviation  of  suffering. 

The  nations  seem  to  be  approaching  a  World  League  for  the 
peaceful   settlement   of   all    disputes. 

If  this  can  be  established  it  will  be  dishonorable  for  a  nation 
to  go  to  war  for  any  cause,  and  a  new  and  better  era  will  be 
achieved. 

All  this  mass  of  experience  can  be  shown  in  photographs  that 
will  make  it  real  and  convincing  to  boys  and  girls.  They  can 
see  for  themselves  the  better  way,  and  grow  up  intelligent  in  this 
the  most  important  of  world  topics,  prepared  in  times  of  popular 
excitement  to  exercise  due  self-control,  that  justice  and  not  force 
may  have  its  way  throughout  the  world.  It  is  this  education  of 
youth  in  the  reasonableness  and  morality  of  international  courts 
of  justice  that  seems  to  me  fundamental,  and  there  is  a  way  to 
giveituniversally  throughout  all  nations  with  adequate  thorough- 
ness by  means  of  a  carefully  prepared  "Illustrated  Lesson  in  Mor- 
als" on  the  general  topic  of  "Law  and  Order  and  International 
Peace." 

If  the  necessary  financial  and  moral  support  can  be  arranged, 
about  $5000  and  the  backing  of  the  Peace  Societies  secured,  a 
national  work  of  education  in  the  world  peace  ideal  can  be 
achieved. 

ADJOURNED. 


SIXTH  SESSION 
Friday  Morning,  May  5,  aT  ten  o'clock 
Eugene  A.  Noble,  Presiding  Officer 

Chairman  Noble:  The  function  of  a  presiding  ofl&cer  at  a 
meeting  of  this  kind  is  to  state  in  a  single  sentence,  or,  at  most,  two 
sentences,  the  essential  facts  connected  with  each  speaker.  That 
is,  the  presiding  ofl&cer  is  to  be  an  abbreviated  "Who's  Who," 
in  relation  to  the  speakers.  I  confess  that  it  is  a  misfortune  for 
me  to  be  compelled  to  state  so  briefly  the  unusual  and  exten- 
sive qualifications  of  the  eminent  persons  who  are  to  address  you. 
They  are  worthy  of  most  elaborate  introduction.  That  Script- 
ural phrase,  "By  their  fruits  shall  ye  know  them,"  would  suggest 
at  least  a  description  of  "the  fruits,"  but  the  necessities  of  the 
hour  require  that  the  "fruits"  shall  be  canned,  preserved,  concen- 
trated, reduced  to  a  mere  extract,  and  my  hope  is  that  this  neces- 
sary process  may  increase  in  sweetness  what  it  minifies  in  substance. 

Before,  however,  introducing  any  of  the  speakers,  I  should  like 
to  say  a  word  or  two  in  connection  with  one  aspect  of  this  general 
peace  question. 

Among  the  agitators  for  peace  from  the  beginning  have  been 
well-known  disinterested  thinkers,  teachers  in  the  highest  sense, 
men  and  women  of  intellectual  independence,  penetration,  and 
power  of  expression.  The  prophetic  function  of  clear  seeing,  of 
appropriate  exposition,  of  frank  declaration  is  exhibited  by  such 
teachers  most  clearly,  and  when  the  last  word  of  peace  agita- 
tion has  been  spoken,  if  that  ideal  condition  is  ever  reached, 
"when  the  war  drum  throbs  no  longer,"  and  stable  equilibrium 
is  universally  kept  on  the  basis  of  reason,  justice,  fraternity  and 
sane  good- will,  it  will  be  found  that  such  teachers  have  contrib- 
uted to  this  desirable  end. 

294 


NOBLE  295 

In  the  pamphlet  entitled,  "The  literature  of  the  Peace  Move- 
ment," Mr.  Edwin  D.  Mead,  of  Boston,  has  called  the  roll  of  many 
of  those  who  have  spoken  vigorously  about  peace.  There  are, 
however,  some  necessary  omissions  in  Mr.  Mead's  pamphlet. 
I  wish  to  mention  two.  One  of  the  sanest  statements  ever  made 
in  connection  with  the  peace  agitation  is  the  statement  of  that 
eminent  humanist,  Erasmus,  who  says: 

"Nature  hath  given  unto  man  alone  the  commodity  of  speech 
and  reasoning:  the  which  things  verily  may  specially  both  get 
and  nourish  benevolence,  so  that  nothing  at  all  should  be  done 
among  men  by  violence." 

I  never  think  of  Erasmus  as  other  than  a  teacher — a  man  so 
benign  and  placid  and  well-balanced  that  he  could  not  be  disturbed 
from  any  of  those  sure  convictions  which  he  calmly  announced 
with  the  equanimity  which  is  essential  to  humanism.  He  believed 
what  he  knew,  and  his  knowledge  has  the  quality  which  makes  for 
universal  truth.  Therefore,  he  was  undisturbed,  and  waited 
patiently  but  with  assurance  for  the  truth  to  make  its  way. 

The  other  teacher  who  deserves  unusual  recognition  because 
of  what  he  says  and  how  he  felt  on  the  question  of  the  world's 
peace  is  one  of  the  bravest  and  truest  American  teachers  we  have 
had.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Emerson,  superb  in  his  mental  equipment 
and  superior  in  his  moral  discernment.  There  are  a  few  pregnant 
words  spoken  by  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  that  ought  to  ring  clear 
in  every  peace  meeting,  and  I  desire  to  submit  them  as  a  kind  of 
keynote  for  the  meeting  we  are  holding  this  morning. 

"Everything  great  must  be  done  in  the  spirit  of  greatness. 
The  manhood  that  has  been  in  war  must  be  transferred  to  the 
cause  of  peace  before  war  can  lose  its  charm,  and  peace  be  vener- 
able to  men.  ...  If  peace  is  to  be  maintained,  it  must  be 
by  brave  men  ....  men  who  have,  by  their  intellectual  in- 
sight or  else  by  their  moral  elevation  attained  such  a  perception  of 
their  own  intrinsic  worth,  that  they  do  not  think  property  or  their 
own  body  a  sufficient  good  to  be  saved  by  such  dereliction  of 
principle  as  treating  a  man  like  a  sheep." 

But  if  Mr.  Mead  has  left  out  of  his  pamphlet  a  few  of  the  per- 
sons whom  I  regard  as  notabilities  in  the  cause  of  peace,  he  has 


296  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

mentioned  some  others  who  will  some  day  wear  as  their  highest 
honor  the  praise  of  a  peaceful  world.  One  of  these,  I  now  have 
the  pleasure  of  introducing.  When  Mr.  Carnegie  devoted  ten 
millions  of  dollars — only  temporarily,  however — to  the  cause  of 
the  world's  peace,  with  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  realized 
sooner  than  pessimists  concede,  and  would  then  be  devoted  to 
curing  the  next  of  the  pressing  grievous  ills  which  afilict  the  world, 
it  was  necessary  to  find  a  man  of  distinction  to  give  practical  direc- 
tion to  Mr.  Carnegie's  munificence.  The  man  so  selected  was 
Mr.  James  Brown  Scott,  whose  personal  contributions  to  the 
question  of  the  peace  of  the  world  have  given  him  a  foremost 
place  among  those  who  think  and  speak  upon  this  questior.  He 
lives  in  one  of  the  attractive  suburbs  of  Baltimore,  the  City  of 
Washington,  and  I  am  pleased  to  present  him  to  you  as  the  first 
speaker  at  this  session. 

THE  POSSIBILITIES  OF  THE  CARNEGIE  ENDOWMENT 
FOR  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 

JAMES    BROWN   SCOTT 

On  the  fourteenth  day  of  December,  1910,  Mr.  Carnegie  gave 
to  the  trustees  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International 
Peace  the  sum  of  $10,000,000,  the  income  of  which  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered, to  quote  Mr.  Carnegie,  "to  hasten  the  abolition  of 
international  war,  the  foulest  blot  upon  our  civilization." 
(yl^         Mr.  Carnegie  left  the  trustees  of  his  chpice  a  free  hand,  saying 


in  his  deed  of  trust  that^^Unes  of  future  action  cannot  be  wisely 
laid  down.  Many  may  have  to  be  tried,  and  having  full  confi- 
dence in  my  trustees  I  leave  to  them  the.^widest  discretion  as  to 
the  measures  and  policy  they  shall  from  time  to  time  adopt, 
only  premising  that  the  one  end  they  shall  keep  unceasingly  in 
view  until  it  is  attained,  is  the  speedy  abolition  of  international 
war  between  so-called  civilized  nations." 

The  income  from  the  vast  fund  with  which  he  has  endowed  the 
cause  of  peace  is  to  be  expended  until  such  time  as  war  shall  cease, 
which  the  generous  donor  believes  possible  because  he  states  in 


SCOTT  297 

his  letter  of  trust  that  when  "war  is  discarded  as  disgraceful  to 
civilized  man  ....  the  trustees  will  then  consider  what  is 
the  next  most  degrading  remaining  evil  or  evils  whose  banish- 
ment— or  what  new  elevating  element  or  elements  if  introduced 
or  fostered,  or  both  combined — would  most  advance  the  progress, 
elevation  and  happiness  of  man,  and  so  on  from  century  to  cen- 
tury without  end,  my  trustees  of  each  age  shall  determine  how  they 
can  best  aid  man  in  his  upward  march  to  higher  and  higher  stages 
of  development  unceasingly." 

If  the  income  of  the  endowment  were  to  be  devoted  to  procure 
the  abolition  of  war,  the  institution  created  for  this  purpose  would 
indeed  be  long-lived,  but  Mr.  Carnegie  means  it  to  be  perpetual 
because,  when  war  shall  have  ceased  to  perplex  nations  and  to 
block  the  path  of  civilization,  the  trustees  are  to  devote  the  income 
to  the  eradication  of  the  greatest  existing  evil  in  order,  as  Mr, 
Carnegie  says,  to  "help  man  in  his  glorious  ascent  onward  and 
upward  and  to  this  end  devote  this  fund." 

The  trustees  mentioned  in  Mr.  Carnegie's  letter  accepted  the 
fund  generously  vested  in  them  by  Mr.  Carnegie,  have  created 
headquarters  at  Washington  and  organized  permanently  in  order 
to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  trust.  At  the  meeting  of  the 
trustees  held  on  the  ninth  day  of  March,  191 1,  the  following  state- 
ment of  the  objects  and  purpose  of  the  endowment  was  unani- 
mously adopted:  "To  advance  the  cause  of  peace  among  nations, 
to  hasten  the  abolition  of  international  war,  and  to  encourage  and 
promote  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  differences." 
Following  this  general  statement,  the  trustees  enumerated  in  a 
series  of  paragraphs  the  specific  purposes  of  the  endowment  and 
the  means  and  instrumentalities  by  which  the  purposes  of  the 
trust  will  be  effected: 

(a)  To  promote  a  thorough  and  scientific  investigation  and 
study  of  the  causes  of  war  and  of  the  practical  methods  to  prevent 
and 'avoid  it. 

(b)  To  aid  in  the  development  of  international  law,  and  a 
general  agreement  on  the  rules  thereof,  and  the  acceptance  of  the 
same  among  nations. 

(c)  To  diffuse  information,  and  to  educate  public  opinion  re- 


298  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

garding  the  causes,  nature  and  effects  of  war,  and  means  for  its  pre- 
vention and  avoidance. 

(d)  To  establish  a  better  understanding  of  international  rights 
and  duties  and  a  more  perfect  sense  of  international  justice  among 
the  inhabitants  of  civilized  countries. 

(e)  To  cultivate  friendly  feelings  between  the  inhabitants  of 
different  countries,  and  to  increase  the  knowledge  and  under- 
standing of  each  other  by  the  several  nations. 

(/■)  To  promote  a  general  acceptance  of  peaceable  methods  in 
the  settlement  of  international  disputes. 

(g)  To  maintain,  promote,  and  assist  such  establishments, 
organizations,  associations,  and  agencies  as  shall  be  deemed  neces- 
sary or  useful  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  purposes  of  the  cor- 
poration, or  any  of  them. 

(h)  To  take  and  hold  such  property,  real  or  personal,  and  to 
invest  and  keep  invested  and  receive  and  apply  the  income  of 
such  funds,  and  to  construct  and  maintain  such  buildings  or  estab- 
lishments, as  shall  be  deemed  necessary  to  prosecute  and  develop 
the  purposes  of  the  corporation,  or  any  of  them. 

(i)  To  do  and  perform  all  lawful  acts  or  things  necessary  or 
proper  in  the  judgment  of  the  trustees  to  promote  the  objects  of 
the  corporation. 

An  examination  of  the  various  activities  of  the  endowment 
set  forth  in  the  paragraphs  above  quoted  shows  that  they  fall 
within  three  general  groups:  First,  a  careful  study  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  involved  in  peace  and  its  maintenance 
(&,  d  and  /) ;  second,  a  purely  scientific  study  and  investigation 
of  the  causes  of  war,  for  if  war  is  to  be  avoided,  the  causes  which 
have  led  to  it  must  be  studied  and  analyzed  in  all  their  aspects 
in  order  to  determine  "the  practical  methods  to  prevent  and 
avoid  it"  (a);  third,  the  propaganda  to  be  undertaken  by  the  en- 
dowment in  order  to  realize  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  created 
(c,  e,  g).  Paragraph  {i)  confers  power  upon  the  trustees  generally 
to  take  action  other  than  that  specified  in  the  preceding  para- 
graphs in  order  to  promote  the  objects  of  the  endowment. 

From  the  general  statement  of  the  objects  of  the  endowment 
and  the  enumeration  of  the  powers  specifically  conferred  upon  the 


SCOTT 


299 


trustees,  it  is  evident  that  the  scope  of  the  endowment  is  very 
wide  and  that  its  usefulness  will  be  very  great,  if  the  fund  be  wisely 
and  conservatively  administered.  The  presidency  of  Mr.  Root 
is  both  a  guaranty  and  a  hope. 

It  is  not  my  present  purpose  to  outline  the  policy  which  the 
endowment  will  pursue  in  the  immediate  future,  other  than  to  say 
broadly  and  generally  that  the  endowment  does  not  intend  to") 
supplant  existing  agencies  but  intends  to  assist  and  strengthen/ 
them,  so  that  the  movement  toward  peace  may  be  rendered  more      ^ 
effective,  and  the  goal  which  is  ever  before  our  eyes  may  seemj 
less  distant,  even  although  unaided  vision  may  fail  to  discover  it, j 

The  endowment  may  find  it  advisable  to  supplement  societies 
and  agencies  already  existing,  but  will  only  take  this  step  when 
its  necessity  is  clearly  demonstrated,  for  the  endowment  has  come 
to  strengthen,  not  supplant,  to  broaden  the  movement,  not  to 
control  it  or  limit  it,  but  to  add  fresh  life  and  vigor,  not  to  deaden 
or  paralyze  existing  activities. 

Without  entering  into  details  or  attempting  to  define  the  work 
which  the  endowment  may  undertake,  I  pass  to  the  possibilities 
which  the  wise  and  conservative,  yet  progressive,  application  of 
the  fund  may  reasonably  suggest.  In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Car- 
negie's generosity  has  made  it  possible  to  study  carefully  and 
exhaustively  the  principles  of  international  law  which  are  neces- 
sarily or  properly  involved  in  peace  and  the  peaceable  settlement 
of  international  differences.  For  example,  one  of  the  specific 
purposes  of  the  endowment  is  to  "promote  a  general  acceptance 
of  peaceable  methods  in  the  settlement  of  international  disputes." 
This  naturally  requires  an  examination  of  the  methods  by  which 
international  disputes  may  be  peaceably  settled,  and  it  may  be 
that  the  wisdom  of  mankind  directed  to  this  object  may  devise 
methods  hitherto  unsuspected,  and  develop  those  which  are  im- 
perfect or  susceptible  of  a  larger  and  more  generous  application. 
Diplomacy  may  be  affected,  good  offices  enlarged,  mediation 
rendered  more  frequent,  commissions  of  inquiry  and  the  resort 
to  arbitration  popularized,  and  the  judicial  settlement  of  inter- 
national disputes  promoted  by  the  establishment  of  a  permanent 
international  tribunal  in  whose  decisions  the  nations  of  the  world 


300  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

will  have  confidence,  because  its  decisions  are  based  upon  the 
passionless  application  of  well-known  and  recognized  principles 
of  law  and  justice.  But  obedience  to  law  is  impossible  if  there  be 
no  law,  and  the  endowment  may  well  take  up  seriously  the  prob- 
lem of  codifying  existing  usage  and  custom,  which  we  call  interna- 
tional law,  and  supplement  it  by  principles  of  law  and  of  justice 
of  which  the  nations  stand  in  need.  This  can  be  done  on 
an  international  scale  by  interesting  in  the  undertaking  special- 
ists in  various  countries,  so  that  the  result  of  their  labors  may  be 
a  law  international  in  its  application  because  devised  by  the 
enlightened  of  various  countries,  and  for  the  same  reason  calculated 
to  meet  the  needs  of  nations. 

In  the  next  place  a  scientific  study  and  investigation  of  the 
causes  of  war  is  now  possible,  for  political  economy,  history  and 
sociology  can  be  drafted  into  service  and  an  analysis  be  had  of  the 
causes  of  war,  and  a  clear  and  accurate  statement  made  of  its  effect, 
not  merely  upon  the  parties  to  it,  but  upon  the  world  at  large, 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  history,  economics,  and  sociology. 
We  can  and  we  must  do,  to  quote  Mr.  Root,  "what  the  scientific 
men  do,  we  must  strive  to  reach  some  deeper  insight  into  the  cause 
of  the  diseases,  of  which  war  is  a  symptom,  than  can  be  obtained 
by  casual  and  occasional  consideration.  That  deeper  insight  can 
be  attained  only  by  long  and  faithful  and  continuous  study  and 
investigation.  We  have  it  in  our  power  now  to  employ  the  men 
who  may  be  the  investigators  in  our  behalf,  but  the  method  that 
we  shall  follow  is  something  to  be  evolved  by  the  most  careful 
consideration." 

What  the  results  of  this  investigation  will  be,  I  may  not  attempt 
to  predict,  but  any  examination  of  the  causes  of  war  will  show  the 
thoughtlessness  and  folly  which  drove  nations  to  arms  and  plunged 
their  peoples  into  the  depths  of  sorrow  and  despair.  The  investi- 
gation will  fail  of  its  purpose  if  it  does  not  show  how  easily  most 
of  the  wars  might  have  been  prevented  if  there  had  existed,  ready 
at  hand,  agencies  and  institutions  to  which  nations  could  have 
resorted  for  the  settlement  of  their  disputes  without  sacrificing 
what  they  regard  as  higher  than  their  welfare — national  honor. 

Again,  the  economic  effects  of  war,  which  are  known  to  be  great, 


SCOTT  301 

will  be  shown  to  influence  not  merely  the  actual  combatants  but 
neutral  nations  as  well,  so  that  the  evil  and  loss  inseparably  con- 
nected with  armed  conflict  are  spread,  like  a  mildew,  over  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth. 

And  finally,  the  sociological  effects  of  war  will  be  made  clear. 
What  we  have  seen  as  in  a  glass  darkly,  we  shall  see  face  to  face, 
and  the  actual  reality  will  be  such  as  to  give  us  pause.  For  general 
statements,  there  will  be  substituted  precise,  detailed  informa- 
tion, and  the  causes  and  consequences  of  war  will  be  worked 
out  with  the  precision  of  science.  Facts  are  stubborn  things,  and 
when  proved  beyond  a  peradventure,  they  cannot  be  wiped  out 
of  existence  or  defied  with  impunity  by  the  strong  men  and  the 
masses  of  men  which  we  call  nations.  Just  as  the  physician  recog- 
nizes the  symptom  and  eradicates  the  disease,  so  we,  treating  war 
as  a  symptom  of  a  diseased  condition,  will  press  beneath  the  sur- 
face to  those  causes  which  have  made  war  possible,  paralyzing, 
if  not  utterly  destroying,  the  body  politic. 

But  the  results  achieved  by  investigation  and  science  would  be 
of  little  value  if  they  were  not  brought  home  to  the  people,  if  they 
were  not  popularized,  so  that  he  who  runsmay  read.  The  Endow- 
ment can  scatter  broadcast  the  results  which  patient  investiga- 
tion have  achieved  and  make  them  a  part  of  the  life  and  thought 
of  every  man  in  every  country,  and  unite  the  efforts  of  humanity 
in  the  great  crusade  against  what  Mr.  Carnegie  rightly  calls  the 
"foulest  blot  upon  our  civihzation."  The  press  may  be  furnished 
reliable  and  readable  information,  reviews  and  magazines  can  be 
utilized,  and  leaflets  distributed,  so  that  in  the  fulness  of  knowl- 
edge, we  may  press  forward  in  the  great  movement  which  has  for 
its  aim  and  ultimate  goal,  the  honorable  and  just  settlement  of 
international  disputes  by  those  means  and  instrumentalities  which 
men,  within  national  lines,  have  found  productive  of  law  and  order 
and  a  condition  of  permanent  equilibrium  and  peace. 

Our  methods  must  be  largely  educational,  and  while  we  must 
not  exclude  the  present,  our  hopes  must  be  set  upon  the  future. 
I  do  not  say  that  the  present  is  lost,  because  that  would  be  an 
exaggeration  and  at  best  a  half-truth.  It  is  evident,  however, 
that  the  present  has  made  up  its  mind  and  can  be  changed  only 


302  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

with  diflSculty.  We  must  seek  to  influence  the  young  lives  which 
will  make  and  control  the  future.  We  must  go  to  the  schools, 
the  colleges  and  the  universities  and  impress  upon  youth  in  the 
formative  periods  of  their  lives  those  principles  of  law  and  justice 
which,  if  observed  and  applied,  will  make  their  children's  heritage 
a  heritage  of  peace  and  justice.  The  past  has  its  lessons,  but  they 
are  largely  lost  on  the  present  generation.  The  history  of  the 
United  States  is  not,  as  our  school  books  would  lead  one  to  be- 
lieve, an  endless  series  of  conflicts.  The  colonists  engaged  in  war, 
to  be  sure,  but  they  converted  a  wilderness  into  the  safe  and  sure 
abodes  of  strong  men  and  brave  women.  The  Revolution  united 
the  colonies  and  made  us  a  nation,  and  from  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  until  the  present  day,  we  have  grown  in  strength, 
in  power  and  influence,  carrying  the  doctrines  of  the  Declaration 
and  our  beneficent  institutions  into  unsuspected  and  undiscovered 
worlds.  A  history  which  chronicles  wars  and  descends  into  the 
details  of  the  battlefield  may  satisfy  the  needs  of  the  professional 
soldier — it  gives  the  layman  no  adequate  idea  of  the  growth  of 
America,  of  the  origin  of  American  institutions,  and  of  the  civil- 
ization which  we  have  planted  and  are  diligently  developing  in 
this  new  world  of  ours.  I  would  not  eliminate  wars  from  our 
history,  for  otherwise  it  would  be  a  false  statement  of  American 
life  and  growth,  but  I  would  lay  stress  upon  the  essentials,  not 
upon  the  accidentals,  of  national  growth  and  life. 

Greece  and  Rome  are  only  dead  in  the  sense  that  they  have 
ceased  to  exist  as  nations.  Their  art  and  philosophy,  their  liter- 
ature and  science  are  immortal.  The  institutions  which  each 
country  created  to  meet  its  needs,  the  federation  of  Greece,  the 
world  law  of  Rome,  and  the  instances  of  arbitration  with  which 
Greek  history  sparkles,  are  unknown  to  the  younger  student.  It 
is  only  in  after  years  that  he  appreciates  the  heavy  debt  we  owe 
them.  The  head  is  full  and  turned  with  endless  wars  and  rumors 
of  war,  leagues  and  alliances,  whereas  very  great  contributions  in 
the  realms  of  thought  and  the  problems  which  they  met  and  solved 
are  lost  upon  the  student  in  his  formative  days,  when  he  is  most 
likely  to  be  influenced  by  example.  The  civilization  of  the  ancient 
world  disappears,  as  it  were,  in  a  sea  of  blood.     School  books  could 


SCOTT  303 

be  prepared  and  introduced  into  our  schools,  colleges  and  univer- 
sities which  would  reanimate  the  past  and  make  its  lessons  safe 
and  sure  guides  to  an  enlightened,  and,  we  hope,  a  better  future. 

Political  economy  which  Mr.  Carlyle  perversely  called  "the 
dismal  science"  is  taught  as  the  science  of  wealth,  but  its  prin- 
ciples are  studied  as  in  a  vacuum.  The  influence  of  war  upon 
production  and  distribution,  exchange  and  consumption,  is  dis- 
regarded. A  proper  text  should  examine  the  effect  of  war  upon  the 
principles  of  political  economy,  and  by  so  doing  would  broaden 
the  subject  and  be,  in  no  small  sense  of  the  word,  an  inducement 
to  peace,  for  wealth  is  created  in  peace,  it  flourishes  in  peace,  and 
it  has  its  highest  development  in  peace. 

Lest  this  enumeration  grow  tiresome,  I  shall  call  your  attention 
merely  to  international  law  which  is  generally  treated  as  dealing 
with  the  rights  and  duties  of  nations  in  peace  and  war.  This 
classification  which  dates  from  Grotius  and  which  was  accurate 
enough  in  his  day,  is  inadequate  in  our  more  enlightened  genera- 
tion. The  rights  and  duties  of  nations  should  be  studied  and  ex- 
pounded in  systematic  form.  The  means  by  which  rights  are 
preserved  and  wrongs  redressed  should  constitute  procedure,  and 
in  this  procedure  stress  should  be  laid  upon  the  peaceful  means  of 
settling  international  controversies.  Just  as  self-redress  between 
man  and  man  gave  way  to  private  arbitration,  and  just  as  private 
arbitration  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  permanent  tribunals, 
so  war,  which  is  self-redress,  is  yielding  to  public  arbitration  be- 
tween nations  which  will,  just  as  in  private  law,  produce  as  the 
final  flower  of  our  international  civilization,  a  truly  permanent 
court  in  which  nation  may  sue  nation  as  easily,  as  peaceably  as 
man  sues  man  in  national  courts  of  justice.  A  proper  text  can 
and  should  be  prepared,  setting  forth  these  views,  so  that  the 
students  of  our  colleges  and  universities  will  understand  the  rights 
and  duties  of  nations,  the  peaceable  means  by  which  they  are 
preserved,  and  which  will  frankly  treat  war  as  an  extra  legal  rem- 
edy, as  certain  to  be  discarded  in  the  future  as  self-redress  is  non- 
existent in  all  civilized  communities. 

If  the  past  is  full  of  regrets,  if  the  present  is  out  of  joint,  the 
future  is  full  of  measureless  promise.     May  the  Carnegie  endow- 


304  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ment  for  international  peace  rise  to  its  mission  and  be  a  factor 
as  Mr.  Root  has  happily  phrased  it,  in  the  substitution  of  the  rule 
of  law  for  the  rule  of  man. 

Chairman  Noble:  There  are  one  or  two  matters  to  which  I 
now  desire  to  call  your  attention.  You  will  note  in  your  pro- 
grams that  there  is  to  be  a  debate  held  in  this  hall  this  evening, 
and  I  have  been  requested  to  announce  that  all  contestants  are 
to  meet  Professor  Rogers  here  immediately  after  this  session. 

There  are  a  few  persons,  agitators  by  profession,  who  would 
have  us  believe  every  once  in  a  while  that  a  war  is  imminent 
between  this  country  and  Japan.  Those  persons,  it  seems  to  some 
of  us,  have  almost  proved  that  there  can  be  motion  without  energy. 
They  are  endorsed,  at  times,  by  newspapers  which  might  be 
described  as  polychromatous  newspapers,  who  would  have  it 
appear  that  we  are  on  the  verge  of  a  great  eruption  of  war  between 
the  United  States  and  Japan.  None  of  these  things  move  us. 
We  do  not  believe  in  such  impending  war  for  a  very  good  reason, 
because  there  is  too  much  intelligence  in  Japan  to  permit  that 
to  come  to  pass.  And  the  intelligence  in  Japan,  I  am  pleased  to 
believe,  has  been  produced  in  some  measure,  by  the  educational 
practices  of  the  United  States.  Japanese  students  in  this  country 
understand  very  well  what  our  position  is  on  this  question,  and  we 
believe  there  will  be  no  such  war. 

One  of  these  Japanese  educated  and  trained  men  is  to  be  the 
next  speaker.  Dr.  T.  lyenaga,  a  graduate  of  this  University,  and 
if  I  may  speak  for  this  University  let  me  say  that  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins welcomes  him  here  this  morning  as  well  as  the  members  of 
this  Congress.  I  have  great  honor  and  pleasure  in  now  present- 
ing Dr.  T.  lyenaga. 

PEACE  IN  ASIA 

T.   lYENAGA 

The  Far  East  has  been  for  the  past  few  decades  the  storm  center 
of  the  world.  Often  has  the  tranquility  of  the  Occident  been 
ruffled  by  the  disturbances  in  the  Orient.     So  unstable  still  is 


lYENAGA  305 

the  political  status,  and  so  vast  and  often  conflicting  are  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Powers  involved,  in  the  Far  and  Near  East,  that  they 
are  factors  potent  enough  to  set  at  any  time  the  world  ablaze. 
For  the  cause  of  peace  nothing  is,  therefore,  more  urgent  than  to 
ensure  it  in  Asia.  The  wisest  statesmanship  and  all  the  forces 
of  propagandism  for  peace  will  do  well  to  be  enlisted  for  its  pro- 
motion  in   the   old   continent. 

The  humanitarian  idea  of  peace  is,  however,  nothing  new  to 
the  Asiatic.  **Pity  for  all  living  creatures,"  "The  Brotherhood 
of  man  the  four  seas  over," — these  messages  were  given  to  Asia 
by  the  Indian  and  Chinese  sages  long  before  the  names  of  Ind  and 
Sinim  first  fell  from  the  lips  of  a  Hebrew  prophet.  Europe  too 
has  seen  nineteen  centuries  since  it  first  accepted  the  gospel  of 
love  for  its  guide.  Neither  Europe  nor  Asia  has,  however,  ever 
obeyed  the  mandate  of  its  master.  Their  history  is  the  story 
of  war  and  bloodshed.  This  is  conspicuously  true  of  Europe. 
Since  modern  nations  have  reared  their  political  structures  upon 
the  ruins  of  Rome,  the  dominant  note  of  their  existence  has  been 
and  still  is  militarism.  To  join  their  ranks,  the  best  passport  is 
martial  prowess.  This  assertion  is  strikingly  proved  by  the  manner 
in  which  Japan  was  at  last  admitted  into  the  list  of  modern  Powers 
For  half  a  century  Japan  assiduously  applied  herself  to  the  recon- 
struction of  the  arts  of  peace.  She  remodelled  her  educational 
system,  codified  her  laws,  brought  the  administration  of  justice 
to  the  modern  standard,  consecrated  her  energy  to  the  cultivation 
of  Western  science  and  literature,  created  the  commercial  and 
industrial  middle  class,  opened  a  Parliament,  and  proclaimed  the 
freedom  of  speech,  press,  and  faith — in  short,  she  completely  re- 
organized her  political  and  social  fabric  upon  the  model  of  the 
West.  Did  this  progress  of  Japan  in  the  arts  of  peace,  however, 
succeed  in  placing  her  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Western 
nations?  No.  Unpleasant  as  it  may  sound  to  you,  the  position 
which  Japan  coveted  in  the  family  of  nations  was  gained  only 
after  she  had  unwittingly  demonstrated  her  skill  in  the  game  of 
war.  When  in  defense  of  her  national  honor  and  interests  she 
fought  her  great  neighbor,  and  won  the  battles  of  Phyong-Yang 
and  the  Yalu,  Japan  discovered  to  her  surprise  that  her  prestige 


306  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

in  the  eyes  of  the  West  had  become  suddenly  enhanced.  And  it 
was  only  after  another  terrible  war,  waged  with  fear  and  tremb- 
ling for  her  national  security,  that  the  frank  recognition  of  the 
Insular  Kingdom  as  a  great  Power  was  given  by  the  world.  This 
is  forsooth  a  sad  commentary  on  the  militarism  of  the  West. 

That  the  militant  spirit  is  not  yet  dead  receives  a  strong  con- 
firmation by  the  recent  utterance  before  the  Reichstag  of  so  high 
an  authority  as  the  German  Chancellor  that  "a  nation  must 
maintain  its  sea  and  land  forces  at  such  a  point  as  shall  correspond 
with  its  national  strength,"  for  otherwise,  "it  would  run  the  risk 
of  forfeiting  its  present  place  among  the  Powers  to  some  stronger 
nation  that  is  willing  to  take  it."  Is  there,  then,  any  wonder  that 
the  conviction  of  the  dire  necessity  for  guarding  herself  by  efficient 
armament  has  sunk  deep  into  the  heart  of  Japan?  This  convic- 
tion it  is  that  makes  the  Japanese  people  bear  without  murmur 
the  heavy  burden  of  maintaining  their  army  and  navy — a  burden 
that  costs  them  yearly  120  million  yen,  equal  to  35  per  cent  of 
their  total  national  revenue.  What  a  relief  to  them  if  they  could 
be  assured  that  their  national  safety  and  vital  interests  were 
safeguarded  without  these  costly  engines  of  war!  How  welcome 
to  them  the  thought  that  these  enormous  expenditures  for  the 
instruments  of  destruction  might  be  turned  to  the  beneficent 
purposes  of  enlightenment  and  economic  well-being!  To  imagine 
that  Japan's  armament  is  for  aggression  is  to  confess  an  ignorance 
of  her  history  and  to  forget  the  kindly  disposition  and  artistic 
temperament  of  her  people.  Japan  is  in  essence  a  peace-loving 
nation.  Her  pursuance  of  a  policy  of  peace  is  further  dictated 
by  the  consideration  of  her  true  welfare.  She  has  a  popula- 
tion of  sixty  millions.  It  is  increasing  at  the  rate  of  600,000 
yearly.  It  is  crowded  into  a  territory  not  larger  than  that 
of  Texas.  This  represents  the  entire  extent  of  the  Japanese 
Empire,  including  Korea,  Formosa,  and  Southern  Saghalien. 
Moreover,  as  you  are  aware,  her  laboring  class  is  not  welcomed  in 
the  lands  of  the  white  peoples.  In  these  circumstances,  Japan's 
salvation  lies  in  commercial  and  industrial  expansion  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Asia.  As  the  delicate  plants  of  trade  and  industry  best 
thrive  on  peaceful  soil,  peace  is  the  first  requisite  of  Japan's 


lYENAGA  307 

prosperity.  She  wants  peace  within  her  borders.  She  wants 
peace  in  Asia.  She  wants  peace  in  the  world.  Every  measure 
that  makes  for  peace  is,  consequently,  most  welcome  to  her. 

What  vitally  concerns  Japan  is  the  continuation  of  peace  in 
Asia.  To  further  that  end,  therefore,  no  stone  has  been  left 
unturned,  so  far  as  lies  in  her  power.  Among  such  means  the 
most  efficient  is  the  Anglo- Japanese  alliance.  A  cursory  examin- 
ation of  the  cause  and  nature  of  the  treaty  will  prove  to  us  that 
its  primary  object  is  the  preservation  of  peace  in  Asia,  resting  as 
it  does  upon  the  maintenance  of  China's  integrity  and  of  the  "open 
door"  policy.  The  first  Anglo- Japanese  alliance  was  formed  in 
1902.  The  decade  preceding  the  compact  was  one  of  the  most 
critical  in  the  annals  of  the  Far  East.  The  China- Japan  war  had 
resulted  in  an  easy  victory  for  Japan,  and  by  the  treaty  of  Shimon- 
oseki  China  had  ceded  to  the  victor  the  Liao-tung  Penninsula. 
The  moment  the  peace  terms  were  known,  however,  Japan  was 
confronted  by  the  powerful  coalition  of  Russia,  France  and  Ger- 
many, and  the  best  fruits  of  her  victory  were  wrested  from  her. 
England  had  looked  with  the  strongest  disapproval  upon  these 
proceedings,  but  she  chose  to  stand  aloof.  This  vacillating  policy 
produced  the  inevitable  result.  England  and  Japan  each  found 
itself  completely  isolated,  and  were  helpless  before  the  strong 
combination  of  three  European  Powers.  The  policy  of  aggression 
won  the  day.  Within  a  few  years  the  Russian  eagles  were  flying 
on  the  fortress  of  Port  Arthur,  Germany  had  seized  Kiaochou,  and 
France  had  secured  Kwang  Chow  Wan.  In  addition  to  these 
seizures  of  territory  there  was  inaugurated  an  era  of  a  wild  scram- 
ble for  railways  and  mining  concessions  from  China.  And  the 
audacity  of  the  Powers  knew  no  bound.  They  even  mapped  out 
among  themselves  the  huge  Chinese  Empire  into  what  they  were 
pleased  to  call  "spheres  of  influence."  While  the  partition  of 
China  was  thus  imminent,  these  high-handed  actions  of  the  Pow- 
ers had  so  roused  the  ire  of  the  Chinese  people  that  it  at  last  burst 
forth  into  the  strangest  crusade  this  weary  earth  after  an  experi- 
ence of  tens  of  centuries  has  ever  known — the  Boxer  uprising. 

During  that  trouble  and  its  settlement,  the  concert  of  Powers 
was  barely  maintained.     Peace  in  Asia  was  seemingly  restored. 


3o8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

but  that  it  was  only  a  short  respite  and  that  a  terrific  storm  was 
approaching  was  evident  from  the  ugly  clouds  which  lowered  over 
the  Manchurian  sky.  These  developments  and  past  experiences 
were  sufficient  to  convince  England  and  Japan  that,  unless  a 
strong  combination  be  effected,  it  would  be  impossible  to  stem 
the  tide  of  European  aggression  in  China,  and  uphold  their  com- 
mon policy  of  peace  in  Asia.  Herein  is  the  genesis  of  the  Anglo- 
Japanese  alliance. 

The  first  treaty  failed  to  avert  the  outbreak  of  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War;  but  there  are  strong  grounds  for  believing  that  the 
salient  provision  of  the  treaty  that  the  British  Empire  would  come 
to  the  aid  of  Japan,  if  any  other  Power  than  Russia  were  to  enter 
the  field,  prevented  the  war  from  becoming  a  world-conflagration. 
To  that  extent,  then,  the  first  Anglo- Japanese  treaty  was  an 
instrument  that  made  for  peace.  In  1905  the  treaty  was  renewed, 
framed  on  a  much  broader  basis,  and  designed  to  preserve  peace 
in  Asia  in  a  more  effective  way.  It  is  often  called  an  offensive 
and  defensive  alliance,  but  it  implies  no  aggression  whatever. 
It  is  purely  an  instrument  of  peace.  The  alliance  has  fully  justi- 
fied its  existence.  It  has  proved  to  be  not  only  the  most  powerful 
instrument  for  the  preservation  of  peace  in  Asia,  but  the  founda- 
tion-stone upon  which  have  been  framed  the  later  international 
agreements  that  maintain  the  balance  of  power  and  peace  in  the 
world. 

Will  this  strong  guarantee  of  peace  come  to  an  end  at  the  expir- 
ation of  the  term  of  the  treaty  in  191 5?  We  hope  not.  The 
cause  of  peace  in  Asia,  the  security  of  China,  and  the  imperial 
policy  of  Japan  and  Great  Britain  loudly  call  for  the  continuance 
of  the  alliance.  If  it  is  broken,  who  can  assure  us  that  the  old 
days  of  western  depredation  in  Asia,  bringing  in  their  train  an 
era  of  carnage  will  not  again  be  ushered  in?  There  are  of  course 
some  pessimists,  whose  broodings  over  creations  of  their  fancy 
make  them  nervous  about  this  alliance,  lest  it  embroil  England  in 
a  war  between  Japan  and  America.  To  say  the  least,  such  a  fear 
is  as  silly  as  it  is  absurd,  for,  logically,  the  alliance  must  rather 
act  as  a  strong  check  upon  the  realization  of  the  fear.  Japan, 
on  her  part,  will  do  everything  in  her  power  to  prevent  the  occur- 


lYENAGA  309 

rence  of  such  a  calamity  as  hideous  to  her  ally  as  to  herself.  No! 
the  war  between  the  two  nations  on  the  opposite  shores  of  the 
Pacific  is  as  unthinkable  as  that  between  the  two  English  speak- 
ing peoples.  The  Japanese  ambassador,  Baron  Uchida,  has 
lately  put  it  before  the  American  Asiatic  Association  in  these 
happy  words:  "There  have  been  wars  of  the  Cross  and  the  Cres- 
cent, of  the  Red  Rose  and  the  White,  but  the  sun  and  the  stars 
have  never  quarrelled  in  their  courses — neither  shall  the  two  flags 
which  bear  these  celestial  emblems  ever  be  carried  at  the  head  of 
hostile  armies.  It  is  unthinkable,  impossible."  This  war  talk,  I 
know  I  need  not  assure  you,  is  nothing  but  either  the  product  of 
a  disordered  mind,  or  the  machination  of  an  evil  genius.  No  more 
signal  proof  of  the  long  standing  friendship  between  America 
and  Japan  can  be  given  than  by  the  new  treaty  concluded  a  few 
months  ago.  In  truth,  all  the  precious  sentiments  the  past  good- 
ness of  America  toward  us  has  stored  in  our  memory,  all  the  good- 
will our  pleasant  association  with  you  in  school  and  in  social  life 
has  cultivated,  the  vital  interests  of  our  commerce,  in  which 
America  distinguishes  herself  as  our  best  customer,  and  the  sound 
and  good  common  sense  of  the  American  people,  which  has  never 
failed  to  make  them  understand  us  rightly — these  form  the  solid 
foundation  for  our  friendship  with  you,  which  neither  a  few  attacks 
upon  us  by  the  ignorant  rabble  nor  the  campaign  of  falsehood 
and  misrepresentation  so  ingeniously  prosecuted  to  estrange  us 
can   shake   or  undermine. 

This  firm  friendship  between  America  and  Japan  is  another 
guarantee  of  peace  in  Asia.  Their  cooperation  is  not  only  the 
herald  of  peace,  but  the  sponsor  of  Anglo-American  civilization 
in  Asia.  You  will  not  charge  me  with  egotism  or  self-conceit, 
when  I  say  to  you  that  the  influence  of  Great  Britain,  America, 
and  Japan  is  now  paramount  over  great  portions  of  Asia.  This 
means  that  Asiatic  development  is  molded  on  the  model  of 
Anglo-American  civilization.  This  is  of  the  deepest  significance 
to  the  future  of  the  great  Asiatic  continent.  I  have  of  course  no 
cause  whatever  to  say  anything  derogatory  of  the  German,  the 
Russian,  or  any  other  type  of  European  civilization.  Each  has 
its  greatness.     But  we  may  be  pardoned  if  we  take  just  pride  in 


3IO  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE  CONGRESS 

the  heritage  our  fathers  have  bequeathed  to  us,  and  in  cherishing 
and  perpetuating  it.  And  not  for  a  moment  do  I  hesitate  to  say 
that  the  salient  features  of  the  civilization  of  modern  Japan  have 
been  cast  in  the  Anglo-American  mold.  This  was  inevitable  from 
the  time  the  Samurai,  who  wielded  the  power  of  pen  and  sword 
in  the  old  days,  merged  themselves  with  the  common  people 
and  took  up  their  cause.  Shall  we,  of  Japan,  then,  be  blamed  for 
wishing  our  Asiatic  neighbors  to  enjoy  the  same  blessings,  the 
principles  of  Liberty,  Equality,  Justice,  and  Order,  that  rule  the 
Anglo- American- Japanese  world?  Peace  in  Asia  and  the  future 
civilization  of  the  Orient  must,  then,  depend  much  upon  whether 
the  cooperation  of  America,  England  and  Japan,  in  perpetuating 
their  present  influence,  will  continue  or  not. 

Chairman  Noble:  Before  introducing  the  next  speaker,  I 
want  to  say  a  frank  word  to  those  in  the  audience  who  are  not 
Baltimoreans.  Baltimore  is  hospitable  to  strangers,  and  we  re- 
joice when  you  assume  our  ways.  Now,  tomorrow  morning  when 
you  ask  for  a  copy  of  one  of  our  leading  papers,  don't  ask  for  a 
copy  of  the  Baltimore  Sun,  but  ask  for  a  copy  of  the'' Sun  paper." 
That  is  a  localism  here.  The  "Sun  paper"  is  a  mighty  good  paper. 
I  doubt  if  there  is  any  city  in  this  country  whose  newspapers 
are  more  intelligently  edited  than  the  newspapers  of  Baltimore, 
and  I  doubt  if  there  are  any  papers  in  the  country  which  give 
more  attention  to  all  good  movements.  We  are  very  proud  of 
our  newspapers. 

I  am  pleased  now  to  introduce  an  editor  of  one  of  them,  Mr. 
Allen  S.  Will,  of  the  Baltimore  Sun. 

POPULAR   INTELLIGENCE    ONE    OF   THE   BEST   PRE- 
VENTIVES OF  WAR 

ALLEN    S.    WILL 

A  political  change  of  far-reaching  importance  to  us  who  believe 
that  war  is  preventable  has  been  taking  place  in  the  last  hundred 
years.  This  is  the  gradual  transfer  of  the  power  of  making  war 
from  those  who  reap  its  rewards  to  those  who  bear  its  burdens. 


WILL  311 

The  change  has  come  through  the  development  of  that  giant, 
public  opinion,  whose  smile  every  prince  and  statesman  must 
now  court  and  before  whose  frown  thrones  shake  and  politicians 
sink  into  obscurity.  The  diffusion  of  intelligence  is  awakening 
the  man  who  fights  in  the  ranks  to  a  sense  of  his  real  responsibility 
for  the  hazard  of  his  own  life;  his  inquiries  are  stretching  beyond 
the  rudimentary  stage  indicated  by  Little  Peterkin's question: 
''But  what  good  came  of  it  at  last?" 

That  was  a  striking  remark  by  Governor  Woodrow  Wilson  the 
other  day,  when  he  said  that  a  reaction  had  set  in  against  govern- 
ment by  the  ''superior  people,"  and  that  the  change  would  grad- 
ually become  more  pronounced  until  the  masses  would  be  "their 
own  masters  and  arbiters."  For  centuries  men  were  willing  to 
offer  themselves  to  be  shot  at  for  no  stronger  reason  than  that  a 
person  superior  in  birth  wished  them  to  do  so.  The  dawn  of 
popular  intelligence  shattered  this  atrocious  system  and  the  con- 
science of  the  world  long  ago  revolted  at  wars  of  succession.  The 
people  remained  willing  to  go  to  war  at  the  behest  of  persons  of 
superior  position  in  their  governmental  structures  whom  they 
trusted  as  leaders  to  such  an  extent  that  they  were  ready  to  leave 
their  wives  widows  and  their  children  fatherless  for  a  cause  which 
in  their  own  judgment  did  not  justify  such  a  sublime  sacrifice. 

So  strong  was  their  habit  of  being  led  that  they  were  easily 
deceived  by  the  threadbare  trick  of  titled  or  untitled  politicians 
who  sought  to  confound  patriotism  with  the  war  feeling.  Fanat- 
ical or  unscrupulous  men  found  a  ready  means  of  prolonging  and 
increasing  their  power  and  affluence  by  inciting  a  storm  of  popular 
passion  under  cover  of  which  their  own  selfish  schemes  might  be 
worked  out.  Their  motives  in  many  cases  were  not  higher  than 
those  of  the  pickpocket  who  suddenly  diverts  the  attention  of 
his  victim  by  some  apparition  of  danger  and  then  deftly  steals  a 
watch.  When  every  heart  has  leaped  to  the  cry  "The  country 
is  in  danger"  politicians  have  known  that  they  were  free  to  huck- 
ster men's  lives  and  plunge  their  greedy  hands  deep  into  the  pub- 
lic treasury. 

How  many  of  the  world's  wars  have  been,  as  Tennyson  says, 
broad-based  upon  the  people's  will?     If  war  is  for  the  benefit  of 


312  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ambitious  princes,  politicians,  agitators  and  other  harpies  who 
usually  dominate  at  a  time  when  organized  conflict  is  impending, 
it  may  well  be  that  the  decision  should  be  left  to  them;  but  if  it 
is  for  the  benefit  of  the  nation — and  this  is  always  the  guise  in 
which  it  is  presented — is  it  not  just  that  the  judgment  of  the 
people  should  approve  the  necessity  for  such  a  tragic  enterprise 
before  they  embark  on  it?  The  peril  of  present  conditions  lies 
in  the  willingness  of  the  people,  from  long-established  custom, 
to  be  led.  If  a  politician  who  helped  to  bring  on  an  unnecessary 
war  knew  that  instead  of  being  rewarded  by  his  constituents, 
he  would  be  swept  out  of  office  by  a  torrent  of  indignation  at  such 
a  crime  against  humanity,  his  habit  of  steering  by  the  compass 
of  popular  favor  would  guide  the  ship  of  his  ambition  in  a  differ- 
ent direction. 

So  recent  is  the  institution  of  popular  education  that  the  aver- 
age man  feels  that  he  is  not  yet  sufficiently  equipped  to  decide 
the  question  of  war  or  peace  for  himself.  He  has  an  impression 
that  he  is  not  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts  and  that  if  he  did 
know  them  he  is  probably  not  qualified  to  reach  a  proper  conclu- 
sion. His  duty,  as  it  appears  to  him  after  centuries  of  habit,  is 
to  abide  to  the  uttermost  by  the  judgment  of  the  public  officers 
in  whom  rests  the  power  of  making  war.  If  the  war  is  long  and 
particularly  if  it  is  disastrous  to  his  personal  interests,  he  is  apt, 
if  he  survives,  to  express  sorrow  later  that  it  was  fought;  but 
coupled  with  this  is  usualljr  a  belief  that  it  was  unavoidable,  that 
some  sweep  of  events  which  he  could  not  control  brought  it  about, 
and  that  he  was  a  helpless  unit  in  the  whole  business.  If  he  had 
a  dispute  with  a  neighbor  in  which  a  corresponding  cause  of  dif- 
ference was  involved,  probably  he  would  not  have  resorted  to 
blows,  but  would  have  found  some  other  method  of  adjustment 
which  would  have  been  fully  as  satisfactory;  yet  he  knows  that 
the  restraints  of  justice  and  moderation  which  obtain  among  in- 
dividuals do  not  yet  apply  to  nations,  which  are  too  willing,  when 
moved  by  selfishness,  not  only  to  dissemble  their  love  for  the 
golden  rule,  but  actually  to  kick  it  downstairs. 

Under  these  circumstances,  one  of  our  strongest  appeals  must 
be'  to  the  masses  of  the  people.     Let  in  the  light  and  their  own 


WILL  313 

sound  sense  will  make  it  impossible  for  their  delegated  representa- 
tives to  embark  them  on  an  unjust  war.  The  greatest  multi- 
plication of  newspapers,  magazines  and  books  which  deal  with 
international  problems  is  desirable.  If  there  is  a  war,  reports  of 
its  horrors  from  day  to  day  will  help  to  prevent  another  one; 
if  there  is  a  rumor  of  war,  those  who  read  of  it  will  have  time  to 
sift  the  question  for  themselves  and  realize  how  absurd  it  would 
be  to  take  10,000  or  100,000  lives  to  settle  a  question  which  can 
be  better  adjusted  without  the  loss  of  any.  Here  and  there  some 
incendiary  will  print  a  "war  extra"  or  some  valiant  stay-at-home 
will  call  on  the  people  to  rise  with  arms  in  their  hands.  In  the 
long  run,  this  will  serve  to  awaken  the  intelligent  to  the  real  dan- 
ger— not  the  other  nations  which  may  be  involved,  but  the  alarm- 
ist at  home.  It  will  quicken  the  public  sense  of  peril  from  the 
stage  thunders  of  demagogues  and  teach  men  to  be  resolute  in 
deciding  vital  questions  for  themselves. 

We  know  that  war  is  the  fruit  of  an  illusion  and  the  best  way 
to  drive  away  the  clouds  which  have  obscured  the  subject  so  long 
is  to  help  the  people  to  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  The 
literature  on  the  subject  of  peace  which  is  springing  up  through- 
out the  civilized  world  is  a  potent  help.  But  a  small  minority 
of  people  is  willing  to  engage  in  war  for  the  pure  love  of  it.  The 
only  excuse  for  an  international  conflict  is  the  belief  that  it  is 
necessary — that,  calamity  though  it  be,  it  must  be  endured  at 
times  because  humanity  has  never  found  a  way  to  avoid  such 
things.  As  popular  intelligence  spreads,  the  citizen  will  learn 
that  war  can  be  and  ought  to  be  prevented;  that  it  is  just  as  hon- 
orable to  settle  a  difference  by  resort  to  a  tribunal  of  just  men  as 
to  a  gamble  of  bloodshed  on  the  field  of  battle;  that  a  nation  can 
make  preparation  for  an  act  of  unauthorized  or  unintentional 
injustice  with  better  grace  than  an  individual;  that  even  an 
apology  under  the  decree  of  an  impartial  court  is  far  less  humiliat- 
ing than  the  bitterness  of  defeat  in  armed  conflict. 

The  economic  waste  of  war  is  the  soundest  argument  against 
it  and  one  that  is  bound  to  prevail  in  the  end  as  intelligence  spreads. 
The  man  and  woman  who  have  built  a  home  and  are  rearing  a 
family  will  be  more  than  willing  to  pause  and  ask  "Is  war  worth 


314  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  sacrifice  of  these  things?"  And  then,  in  time,  will  come  a 
realization  that  the  present  vast  expenditure  for  armies  and  navies 
is  a  reckless  waste  of  their  resources.  They  will  see  that  it  is 
much  better  for  them  to  add  a  room  to  their  cottage  or  to  educate 
a  son  or  daughter  than  to  pay  their  share  of  taxes  for  the  war 
budget.  They  protect  their  children  from  small-pox  by  means 
of  vaccination  and  strive  to  ward  off  the  curse  of  typhoid  fever. 
Will  they  not  learn  in  time  to  guard  them  from  the  scourge  of 
war,  which  can  be  more  deadly  than  either?  With  the  more 
general  diffusion  of  intelligence  will  come  a  deeper  interest  in  the 
afifairs  of  other  nations.  Education  clears  the  international 
mystery  and  brings  about  a  real  sense  of  the  brotherhood  of  man. 
The  time  is  past  when  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  can  be  divided 
into  Greeks  and  barbarians.  Education  and  invention  have 
brought  us  in  touch  with  the  antipodes  and  we  no  longer  dread 
another  people  as  being  so  fierce  and  dangerous  that,  like  the 
Romans,  we  must  always  keep  the  treasure  in  the  temple  to  de- 
fend ourselves   against  the   Gauls. 

These  are  the  fallacies  upon  which  the  war  feeling  has  been  fed. 
Deprive  it  of  its  sustenance,  and  it  will  die  of  starvation. 

Truth  is  the  prime  corrective  under  a  system  of  popular  govern- 
ment. We  need  not  greatly  concern  ourselves  because  the  pages 
of  history  are  so  filled  with  the  deeds  of  the  soldier  that  there  is 
scant  room  for  anything  else.  This  lack  of  proportion  is  already 
disappearing  in  the  newer  historical  works  and  the  accomplish- 
ments of  peoples  in  the  arts  of  peace  are  now  engaging  the  general 
attention  of  scholars.  Awakening  intelligence  refuses  to  believe 
that  the  nations  of  antiquity  did  nothing  but  make  war  on  each 
other;  that  the  knight  and  the  archer  performed  the  principal 
constructive  work  of  medieval  days. 

We  reprehend  the  ''pistol-toter"  and  outlaw  his  offense  as 
menace  to  the  community;  are  we  to  continue  to  permit  the  family 
of  nations  to  be  a  family  of  "pistol-toters?"  Each  of  them  pro- 
fesses to  be  guided  by  lofty  impulses  of  humanity,  yet  bristles 
with  cannon,  rifles,  bayonets  and  battleships  and  some  of  them 
even  now  are  seeking  to  use  the  airship  in  the  business  of  taking 
life.     Popular  education  will  disclose  the  absurdity  of  this  double 


WILL  315 

standard  to  the  citizen  who  controls  by  his  ballot  the  ultimate 
destiny  of  a  free  people.  He  will  penetrate  the  thin  disguises 
of  diplomacy  and  detect  with  unerring  analysis  the  piratical  in- 
stinct which  still  lurks  in  the  policy  of  one  nation  toward  another. 
Catch  phrases  and  cunning  appeals  to  the  war  feeling  masked 
under  the  name  of  patriotism  will  no  longer  lead  him  to  abdicate 
his  reason  and  forsake  his  prosperous  home  to  perish  of  camp  fever 
in  a  damp  trench.  He  will  be  no  less  ready  than  before  to  serve 
his  country — perhaps  he  will  be  readier,  for  there  is  patriotic 
Work  to  do  besides  echoing  the  mouthings  of  the  fanatic  and  the 
international  schemer. 

A  danger  to  be  avoided  at  all  hazards  is  the  stirring  up  of  popu- 
lar passion  based  on  an  appeal  to  ignorance.  Formerly  the  hope 
of  plunder  could  be  held  out  as  an  inducement  to  men  who  bore 
the  cross-bow  or  the  musket  to  risk  their  lives  in  a  conflict  of 
nations.  Even  before  the  spread  of  education  public  opinion 
rendered  impossible  the  sacking  of  cities  and  the  holding  in  servi- 
tude of  men  who  had  been  captured  in  war.  With  this  resource 
exhausted,  the  promoters  of  strife  hit  upon  the  expedient  of  craft- 
ily producing  a  sort  of  national  "brainstorm"  which  swept  them 
forward  to  the  fruition  of  their  designs.  This  form  of  hysterics 
is  akin  in  its  psychological  manifestations  to  the  phenomenon 
of  panic.  Persons  in  the  rear  of  a  crowd  trapped  in  a  burning 
theatre  feel  all  the  madness  of  those  in  front  before  they  know  that 
a  fire  has  broken  out,  or  that  there  is  any  cause  for  alarm.  With 
the  wider  diffusion  of  intelligence  reason  will  be  able  to  hold  her 
seat  against  the  assaults  of  public  tumult.  Men  will  see  the  folly 
of  submitting  to  a  capital  operation  for  the  cure  of  a  slight  illness. 
Someone  will  cry  "peace"  and  the  intelligent  will  hearken  to 
him  more  readily  than  to  the  shrieks  of  the  war  advocate.  Men 
who  have  the  capacity  to  understand  will  demand  to  be  informed 
why  they  should  give  up  every  stake  they  hold  in  the  game  of 
life  in  order  to  shoot  at  other  men  whom  they  have  never  seen 
and  offer  themselves  as  targets  in  turn.  They  will  ask  why  when 
their  neighbors  commit  an  aggression  they  go  to  court  but  when 
a  nation  attempts  the  same  thing  they  must  go  to  war. 

The  highest  function  of  government  is  the  promotion  of  the 


3i6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

happiness  and  prosperity  of  a  people  and  there  is  enough  in  this 
task  to  call  forth  all  the  devotion  and  intelHgence  of  every  citi- 
zen. Teach  him  to  know — place  the  means  of  sound  education 
within  his  reach  and  you  will  find  that  he  will  soon  learn  to  see 
things  as  they  are. 

The  great  number  of  newspapers  and  magazines  which  reason 
soberly  will  awaken  his  perception  to  a  point  where  he  cannot  be 
deluded  by  an  occasional  ''war  extra"  or  alarmist  article.  He  will 
be  adamant  to  an  appeal  for  revenge  against  a  whole  people 
and  will  be  ready  to  rebuke  at  the  polls  the  trickster  who  would 
fan  the  flames  of  public  excitement.  He  will  perceive  that  the 
peace  movement  does  not  mean  that  disputes  between  nations 
shall  remain  unsettled,  or  that  injustice  by  one  nation  to  another 
shall  be  permitted,  but  that  its  real  object  is  that  methods  for 
the  orderly  adjustment  of  differences  among  individuals  which 
have  long  been  practiced  shall  be  applied  to  nations;  and  that  the 
rule  of  justice  instead  of  the  rule  of  force  shall  be  the  standard 
of  governments  everywhere. 

Chairman  Noble:  Peculiarities  of  cities  are  described,  as 
you  know,  in  phrases.  Baltimore  is  the  "Monumental  City" 
and  the  other  cities  of  the  country  have  words  or  phrases  that 
describe  them.  If  my  friends  from  other  cities  will  not  object, 
I  should  like  to  characterize  Boston  as  the  "City  of  Philanthropic 
Mind,"  and  that  mind  finds  expression  in  the  great  deeds  of  cer- 
tain men.  It  will  be  my  privilege  now  to  introduce  a  distinguished 
citizen  of  Boston,  who,  more  than  a  year  before  Mr.  Carnegie 
made  provision  for  his  great  endowment  of  $10,000,000,  saw  what 
was  coming  and  did  what  was  timely.  Mr.  Edwin  Ginn,  of 
Boston,  provided  for  a  great  gift  of  $1,000,000,  and  is  contribut- 
ing $50,000  a  year,  for  the  propagation  of  the  peace  idea.  That 
is  not  all  that  Mr.  Ginn  is  doing.  It  would  perhaps  be  a  longer 
story  than  I  should  tell  if  I  were  to  repeat  some  of  the  things 
which  he  has  made  possible.  I  would  like  to  say  that  through 
his  generosity  certain  books  are  being  published  in  a  peace  lib- 
rary and  sold  at  scarcely  the  cost  of  publication.  Books  that 
should  be  sold  at  a  dollar  and  one  dollar  and  a  half  are  being  sold 


GINN  317 

at  fifty  and  seventy-five  cents.  Mr.  Ginn  is  responsible  for  this. 
He  is  a  man  who  is  widely  known  and  loved.  I  now  have  the 
pleasure  of  introducing  Mr.  Edwin  Ginn  of  Boston. 

THE  WORLD  PEACE  FOUNDATION 

EDWIN   GINN 

The  limited  time  at  my  disposal  does  not  permit  me  to  go  over 
as  fully  as  I  would  like  the  plans  of  the  World  Peace  Foundation 
and  I  will  therefore  proceed  at  once  to  the  discussion  of  what  I 
consider  the  most  important  part  of  our  work  in  the  immediate 
future;  namely,  the  problem  of  disarmament. 

This  is  a  difl&cult  matter  to  handle.  Men  do  not  throw  away 
their  lives  or  property  carelessly.  They  believe  that  the  present 
system  is  necessary.  If  we  would  attack  it  effectively,  we  must 
substitute  a  force  that  will  protect  the  people  in  all  their  rights 
at  less  expense  in  blood  and  treasure.  When  the  different  coun- 
tries were  widely  separated  with  imperfect  means  of  communica- 
tion, when  each  had  to  solve  its  problems  independently  and  rarely 
felt  the  presence  of  the  others  unless  by  contact  in  war,  this  sys- 
tem became  firmly  entrenched  and  has  gradually  strengthened 
until  it  has  become  a  most  serious  menace  to  civilization.  Con- 
ditions have  now  entirely  changed.  Steam  and  electricity  have 
brought  the  nations  into  such  close  relations  that  an  injury  to 
one  is  almost  immediately  felt  by  the  others.  The  world  is  fast 
ignoring  border  lines.  It  does  not  ask  whether  you  are  German, 
French,  American  or  English,  but  what  can  you  do  for  your  fel- 
lows in  overcoming  the  ravages  of  tuberculosis,  for  instance,  or  for 
the  development  of  mankind  along  any  humanitarian  line.  This 
coming  together  of  the  nations  is  shown  in  various  international 
organizations  which  are  considering  the  well-being  of  all  without/\ 
regard  to  nationality,  such  as  the  International  Institute  of 
Agriculture,  the  International  Medical  Association  against  War- 
fare, the  Permanent  Committee  of  the  International  Congress 
of  Chambers  of  Commerce,  the  International  Congress  of  the 
Press,  International  Congresses  of  Science,  the  Red  Cross  Society, 


\<:)*"' 


318  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

and  scores  of  other  organizations.  The  advantages  coming  from 
a  closer  intercourse  among  the  nations  cannot  be  overestimated. 
A  few  countries  have  done  something  in  exchanging  professors 
and  in  sending  to  one  another  representatives  of  churches,  of 
boards  of  trade,  and  the  like,  but  hardly  a  beginning  has  been 
made.  A  systematic  effort  should  be  made  in  every  direction 
to  bring  people  of  like  callings  in  the  different  nations  into  associ- 
ation with  one  another,  in  order  that  they  may  become  better 
acquainted.  The  governments  themselves  should  lend  a  hand 
in  this  fraternization. 

Military  control  by  individual  nations  is  too  expensive  in  human 
life  and  property.  No  nation  is  strong  enough  to  defend  itself 
from  attack  from  all  directions.  This  system  of  independent 
action  is  producing  an  intense  rivalry  between  the  nations  which 
is  leading  to  bankruptcy. 

INTERNATIONAL   ARMY 

May  I  venture  again  to  suggest  a  plan  for  safeguarding  the 
nations  more  perfectly  than  the  present  method,  with  a  great 
saving  of  life  and  property  and  without  disturbing  the  existing 
order  of  things?  It  is  this:  To  form  an  international  army  along 
the  lines  of  our  national  armies,  to  consist  of,  say,  10  per  cent  of 
the  present  armament  of  each  nation,  and  to  station  portions  of 
ithis  international  army  in  localities  where  friction  is  likely  to 
occur.  Each  nation  will  be  as  strong  as  now,  relatively,  after 
It  has  given  up  10  per  cent  of  its  armament  to  an  international 
force.  Its  military  system  can  be  carried  on  as  effectively  and 
as  independently  of  the  other  nations,  as  at  present.  No  extra 
expense  will  be  incurred.  The  question  of  the  amount  each  nation 
ihall  contribute  to  this  army  is  solved,  since  each  is  required  to 
give  a  certain  proportion  of  its  force,  be  it  large  or  small.  The 
question  of  organization  need  not  disturb  us.  We  have  a  prece- 
dent for  such  a  force  in  the  Boxer  difficulties.  It  is  feasible,  and, 
if  established,  within  ten  years  will  prove  adequate  for  the  pro- 
tection of  each  and  all.  When  this  is  done  the  fear  and  distrust 
from  which  the  nations  are  now  suffering  will  disappear  and  with 


GINN  319 

it  the  large  armies  and  navies.     They  will  no  longer  be  needed. 
A  plan  so  simple  and  practical  is  certainly  worth  the  trial. 

The  great  step  being  taken  now  by  England  and  America— 
perhaps  by  France  and  Japan — for  an  arbitration  treaty  to  settle 
at  The  Hague  all  difficulties  that  may  arise  of  whatever  nature, 
is  along  lines  of  cooperation.  If  a  treaty  is  formed  by  these  four 
powers,  it  will  have  a  great  influence  upon  other  nations  and 
without  doubt  this  movement  will  spread  until  all  will  agree  to 
settle  their  difl&culties  in  this  way;  but  we  shall  always  need  a  small 
international  force,  as  we  need  now  a  national  force,  to  restrain 
the  violent  and  turbulent. 

INFLUENCES  AGAINST  DISARMAMENT 

It  is  only  fair  for  us  to  recognize  that  most  of  those  engaged  in 
militarism  are  conscientiously  performing  what  they  consider  to 
be  their  duty,  and  if  we  are  to  educate  them  to  realize  their  mis- 
take, we  must  try  to  understand  their  point  of  view.     No  one  is  able 
to  tell  to  what  degree  his  opinions  are  influenced  by  his  surround- 
ings.    Those  who  are  profiting  yearly  by   these  two  thousand    I 
million  dollars  of  contracts  for  military  purposes  cannot  help    j  tt^ 
being  biased  because  of  them.     It  is  natural  for  them  to  defend—' 
the  present  military  system  and  to  use  a  portion  of  the  enormous 
profits  they  are  receiving  for  its  continuance  through  the  lobbies 
in  the  various  parliaments  of  the  world  and  in  every  other  way 
open  to  them.     We  can  readily  see  what  a  tremendous  influence 
these  selfish  interests  have  upon  public  opinion;  and  we  have  to 
reckon  with  this  influence  in  our  endeavor  to  bring  about  a  change 
in  the  existing  order  of  things. 

ORGANIZATION  OF   WORLD   PEACE  FOUNDATION 

It  is  with  a  view  of  educating  the  world  along  these  and  other 
permanent  lines  that  the  World  Peace  Foundation  was  formed. 
The  people  must  be  educated  to  higher  ideals  of  international 
life.  This  we  have  been  endeavoring  to  do  for  the  past  ten  years, 
so  that  our  organization  is  the  result  of  practical  experience.  We 
have   aimed  to   attack  this  problem  in  every  effective   way — 


320  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

politically,  economically,  educationally  and  morally.  Our  plan 
or  organization,  as  you  know,  is  similar  to  that  of  the  ordinary 
college,  calling  for  a  board  of  trustees,  a  board  of  directors  cor- 
responding to  the  faculty,  and  an  advisory  council. 

In  choosing  our  representatives  the  first  requirement  is  always 
k^evotion  to  the  cause.  One  such  worker  will  be  more  effective 
than  a  hundred  who  enter  the  service  simply  as  a  means  of  sup- 
port. Next,  they  must  be  able  men,  fitted  to  write  and  speak 
with  power  on  international  questions.  Our  directors  are  such 
men.     I  need  only  mention  their  names  to  prove  this: 

President  David  Starr  Jordan  of  Stanford  University,  who  has 
been  chosen  chief  director;  Edwin  D.  Mead,  the  secretary  of  the 
Foundation;  James  Brown  Scott,  long  connected  with  the  State 
Department,  and  editor  of  the  Journal  of  International  Law; 
Rev.  Charles  R.  Brown,  recently  elected  Dean  of  Yale  Theo- 
logical School;  John  R.  Mott,  who  has  done  such  effective  mis- 
sionary work  in  organizing  the  student  bodies  in  the  different 
countries  to  work  together;  James  A.  Macdonald,  the  very  efl&cient 
editor  of  the  Toronto  Glove  and  an  able  public  speaker;  and  Ham- 
ilton Holt,  the  well-known  editor  of  the  Independent.  All  are  men 
of  large  capacity. 

Besides  our  directors,  we  have  several  lecturers  in  the  field, 
prominent  among  whom  is  Miss  JEckstein,  who  has  for  several 
^  years  been  laboring  for  the  cause,  not  only  here  but  in  other 
countries.  Most  of  you  know  of  the  great  petition  for  arbitra- 
tion which  she  presented  at  the  last  Hague  Congress.  For  the 
last  two  years  she  has  been  working  very  effectively  in  Germany 
and  England. 

PLAN   OF    WORK 

We  intend  to  carry  on  this  work  through  organized  channels. 
We  have  not  the  means  to  employ  a  thousand  and  one  teachers 
in  the  regularly  organized  schools,  but  we  can  bring  these  teachers 
together  in  conventions  and  work  through  them  in  every  classroom 
thus  making  the  teacher  an  important  factor  in  our  organization. 

We  shall  pay  special  attention  to  the  courses  of  study  in  the 
schools,  in  order  that  we  may  improve  conditions  there.     In  times 


GINN  321 

past,  when  fighting  was  the  main  business  of  the  world,  literature 
consisted  largely  of  the  stories  of  conflicts,  and  much  space  and 
time  were  taken  up  by  these  descriptions  in  histories.  Fortu- 
nately recent  histories  show  a  marked  improvement  in  this 
respect,  though  there  still  remains  too  much  that  has  a  pernicious 
influence  upon  the  young.  Is  it  surprising  that  our  children 
should  receive  the  impression  that  war  has  contributed  cardinally 
to  the  development  of  mankind,  when  so  large  a  part  of  our  his- 
tories and  so  much  of  the  literature  studied  in  our  schools  are 
devoted  to  the  details  of  the  battlefield  and  so  little  to  the  more 
real  things  of  life — the  things  that  are  constructively  developing 
the  nations?  We  desire  to  have  it  made  very  plain  to  what  extent 
civilization  has  been  hindered  by  these  misfortunes.  The  study 
of  history  should  dwell  largely  upon  the  peaceful  pursuitsoif  lif e  — 
agriculture,  trade,  commerce,  schools.  Science.  These  are  the 
things  to  which  the  children  should  give  their  chief  attention,  and 
not  the  struggles  between  the  nations. 

Then  there  are  the  preachers,  who  come  in  contact  with  all 
classes  and  conditions  of  men,  young  and  old,  the  world  over. 
Here  is  a  tremendous  influence  that  should  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation. Our  directors  will  meet  these  ministers  in  conventions 
and  awaken  their  special  interest  in  these  matters  so  that  they 
will  take  up  the  work  with  their  congregations. 

THE   PRESS 

The  press  is  a  most  powerful  influence  and  the  one  that  the 
world  responds  to  most  readily.  We  mean  to  keep  in  touch  with 
its  great  leaders,  personally  and  in  conventions,  and  endeavor  to 
impress  upon  them  the  kind  of  work  the  cause  needs  in  the  maga- 
zine, the  weekly,  and  the  daily  journal.  Editors  will  be  urged  to 
use  the  greatest  care  in  the  selection  of  material  and  to  eliminate 
such  matter  as  would  incite  the  people  of  one  nation  against  an- 
other. Those  who  write  for  the  newspapers  should  have  a  serious 
appreciation  of  their  great  responsibility.  Is  it  not  desirable  that 
we  seek  for  bright  young  men  who  have  an  aptitude  for  this  pro- 
fession, and  educate  them  carefully  to  take  up  its  duties?   In 


322  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

every  other  branch  of  educational  work  the  teachers  and  direc- 
tors serve  a  long  apprenticeship;  but  here  is  one  of  the  greatest 
powers  on  earth  for  which  there  is  seldom  any  special  training 
required.  It  seems  to  me  of  the  utmost  importance  that  means 
should  be  provided  for  educating  young  men  for  this  profession — 
men  of  high  moral  tone,  who  could  not  be  induced  by  any  consider- 
ation to  lend  their  influence  to  unworthy  objects.  I  say  this  with 
the  fullest  and  most  grateful  appreciation  of  the  thorough,  con- 
scientious, and  effective  work  being  done  by  so  many  of  our  news- 
papers. 

"Not  only  do  we  need  a  director  to  give  his  whole  time  to  the 
press  of  the  world,  keeping  in  communication  with  the  leading 
editors,  but  we  also  need  to  supplement  his  work  by  a  press  bureau 
for  the  collection  and  distribution  of  important  information  bear- 
ing upon  this  subject. 

BUSINESS    MEN 

Another  great  body  of  men  of  great  influence  are  the  merchants, 
the  manufacturers,  and  the  financiers.  They  hold  within  their 
grasp  the  means  for  carrying  on  war,  and  we  should  see  that  they 
have  the  fullest  information  bearing  upon  this  subject,  in  order 
that  they  should  withhold  their  support  from  a  system  that  is 
exercising  such  a  baneful  influence.  Our  directors  will  endeavor 
to  meet  these  men  in  their  conventions,  as  well  as  individually, 
and  urge  them  to  shoulder  their  responsibility  in  this  great  cause. 

PEACE    LITERATURE 

We  shall  continue  to  publish  the  best  literature  on  the  subject 
in  our  International  Library  and  scatter  it  broadcast.  Many  of 
these  volumes  could  be  made  very  important  factors  in  this  cam- 
paign of  education.  Lay  Down  Your  Arms  by  Baroness  von  Sutt- 
ner,  also  her  stirring  autobiography,  might  do  for  the  peace  cause 
what  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  did  for  the  freedom  of  the  slaves.  In 
this  autobiography  she  has  woven  into  her  own  life  history  the 
historical  narrative  of  her  work,  and  others',  in  the  great  peace 
movement  in  which  she  has  taken  so  prominent  a  part.     But 


GINN  323 

before  people  will  read  extensively  their  interest  must  often  J&rst 
be  awakened  by  the  spoken  word.  Earnest  men  and  women  who 
recognize  the  evils  of  war  must  go  into  the  field  and  exert  their 
personal  influence — those  who  have  implanted  in  them  the  divine 
spark,  which  will  kindle  a  like  spirit  in  others. 

The  glorious  side  of  war  has  been  too  much  emphasized— 
the  brilliant  charges,  the  full  regiments  marching  to  the  front 
with  flying  colors  to  the  strains  of  martial  music.  The  other  side 
of  the  picture  should  be  as  carefully  portrayed — the  return  of  these 
regiments  reduced  to  a  tenth  of  their  original  number,  maimed  and 
feeble,  carrying  torn  and  blood-stained  battle-flags.  A  knowl- 
edge of  that  side  of  the  picture  is  necessary  for  a  full  comprehen- 
sion of  what  war  means.  Children  should  read  the  account  of 
Napoleon's  march  into  Russia  and  return,  as  given  by  Grote  and 
Segur  in  The  Two  Great  Retreats.  The  painter  Verestchagin  going 
upon  the  Russian  battleship  that  he  might  depict  more  effectively 
the  horrors  of  war  in  the  great  conflict  between  Japan  and  Russia, 
in  which  nearly  the  whole  fleet  of  Russia  with  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand seamen  was  destroyed,  by  his  own  death  when  the  ship  went 
down,  left  a  deeper  impression  upon  the  world  than  anything 
he  had  previously  been  able  to  do.  Victor  Hugo's  description 
of  the  dead  and  dying  on  the  field  after  the  Battle  of  Waterloo, 
should  be  read  in  all  our  schools.  There  is  work  enough  for  an 
army  of  men  and  women  in  properly  educating  the  people. 

LATENT   INTEREST 

At  the  present  time  there  is  a  very  general  feeling  against  war 
and  in  favor  of  universal  peace,  but  that  feeling  is  inactive.  The 
great  mass  of  people  the  world  oyer  are  giving  99  per  cent  of  their 
thought  and  time  and  money  to  the  various  enterprises  in  which 
they  are  engaged,  with  hardly  a  moment's  consideration  of  this 
greatest  of  all  problems,  affecting  as  it  does  every  human  being 
in  the  cost  of  his  food,  his  clothing,  and  his  housing.  We  must 
take  steps  to  awaken  this  interest  to  active  cooperation. 

Some  people  think  that  we  are  very  near  the  solution  of  this 
military  problem.     I  am  not  of  their  opinion.     It  will  take  many 


324  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

millions  of  dollars  to  carry  this  work  to  a  successful  issue,  and  the 
funds  given  by  a  few  generous  people  are  wholly  inadequate. 
Moreover,  it  would  not  be  well  for  the  people  to  feel  that  this 
responsibility  had  been  taken  off  their  shoulders  and  that  the 
work  could  be  accomplished  without  their  assistance.  They 
must  be  made  to  realize  that  world-wide  cooperation  is  necessary. 
A  person  is  interested  in  that  in  which  he  has  an  investment, 
either  in  time  or  money,  and  it  is  this  investment,  this  responsi- 
bility, that  the  friends  of  peace  must  take  upon  themselves  if 
this  problem  is  to  be  solved. 

The  odds  against  us  are  great  and  we  cannot  successfully  meet 
them  with  a  few  millions.  It  will  take  long  to  overcome  the 
general  belief  in  the  necessity  for  the  present  system  and  the  sel- 
fish interests  working  for  its  continuance,  but  we  have  a  good 
background  on  which  to  rely — the  latent  sentiment  in  favor  of 
peace  which  we  must  bring  into  activity  by  continuous,  persistent 
and  personal  effort.  We  must  seek  out  and  employ  those  who 
have  the  spirit  of  a  Burritt,  a  Phillips,  a  Garrison,  a  Godfrey,  a 
Savonarola.  Only  such  a  spirit  can  overcome  the  tremendous 
odds  against  us. 

Chairman  Noble:  The  last  speaker  of  the  morning  is  from 
the  "Lone  Star  State",  the  State  of  great  territory,  the  State  of 
big  hope,  the  State  of  big  promise,  the  State  of  big  performance, 
the  State  of  big  men,  and  I  have  the  privilege  of  introducing  to 
you  now  the  president  of  Baylor  University,  Waco,  Texas,  Mr. 
Samuel  P.  Brooks. 

THE  SCHOOLROOM  IN  THE  PEACE  PROPAGANDA 

S.    p.    BROOKS 

No  man  knows  how  long  it  took  the  Almighty  to  build  the 
worlds  that  make  up  the  Universe.  Certain  it  is  He  did  not  do 
it  in  a  day.  No  man  knows  how  long  civilization  has  been  in  the 
making.  Every  wise  man  knows  that  the  Creator  did  not  set 
up  human  society  as  a  complete  organism,  even  approximating 
its  completion  as  now  found  in  its  interrelated  but  manifold  parts. 


BROOKS  325 

Our  ancestors  did  not  know  the  tricks  of  the  modern  tailor,  but 
they  did  the  best  they  knew.  They  did  not  order  by  telephone 
refrigerated  meats;  they  went  about  in  the  forests  hunting  for 
food.  In  dire  distress  they  sometimes  ate  each  other.  Just  as 
soon  as  they  discovered  that  it  was  better  not  to  eat  prisoners 
captured  in  war,  they  put  them  as  slaves  to  taming  wild  animals 
and  to  herding  them  in  flocks. 

The  hunter  with  crude  implements  of  warfare  put  to  rout  the 
weaker  man  or  race.  He  nowhere  knew  about  modern  rights  as 
exemplified  in  our  courts  of  law.  In  the  process  of  time  the 
hunter  became  the  herder.  Herding  the  flocks  was  impossible 
without  recognition  of  certain  elemental  property  rights  shown  by 
possession.  The  chief  herders  became  patriarchs.  Diplomacy 
between  patriarchs  pointed  the  way  to  diplomacy  between  nations. 

The  tiller  of  the  soil  was  the  successor  of  the  herdsman.  The 
advent  of  the  plow,  or  agricultural  stage  of  society,  introduced 
new  blessings,  more  than  society  had  ever  enjoyed.  Discoveries 
and  inventions  of  merit  are  rarely  ever  made  unless  needed  by 
society.  The  herder  needed  less  land  than  the  hunter;  while  the 
plowman,  needing  the  land,  ran  dividing  lines  across  the  pastures 
of  the  herdsman.  To  the  plow  we  owe  our  highest  expression  of 
law  at  home  or  abroad.  Without  peace  among  men  planted 
crops  are  never  harvested.  The  plow  is  a  veritable  exponent  of 
peace  on  earth  and  good  will  to  all  men.  The  plow  introduced 
homes  with  every  domestic  blessing,  schools  with  their  far-reach- 
ing and  ever-increasing  advantages,  churches  the  best  visible 
means  of  keeping  alive  or  propagating  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 
Only  the  imagination  can  give  rightful  honor  to  this  implement 
of  the  agricultural  stage  of  society. 

The  school  is  a  type  of,  and  has  developed  as  a  contemporary 
with,  this  period  of  social  growth.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the 
world's  greatest  teacher.  The  very  strength  of  His  teaching  was 
its  simplicity,  to  which  teachers  of  the  world  have  been  slow  to 
give  credence.  However,  they  now  know  that  teaching  is  done 
best  by  him  who  deals  in  parables,  as  did  the  Son  of  Man.  Par- 
ables attract  and  hold  the  student,  for  they  have  to  do  with  the 
universal  as  to  time  and  place.     They  seem  to  take  one  out  of 


326  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  realm  of  theory  and  place  him  in  the  field  of  fact.  Teachers 
do  not  always  see  this.  They  too  frequently  have  hobbled  their 
instruction  by  making  local  applications.  They  have  sought  to 
develop  the  interest  of  students  by  an  appeal  to  patriotism,  which 
patriotism  was  false  in  fact  for  it  was  based  on  hatred  to  what  lay 
without  the  field  of  study.  Throughout  the  ages  men  have  des- 
pised what  they  were  ignorant  of  and  have  hated  whomsoever 
they  did  not  know.  Historical  teachers,  so-called,  have  been 
synonymous  with  tyrants.  They  have  yielded  up  their  ignor- 
ance or  have  taken  on  new  knowledge  reluctantly.  They  have 
punished  students  who  dared  to  object;  have  mocked  any  dis- 
covery of  new  knowledge;  have,  as  if  by  authority  of  Heaven, 
condemned  to  perdition  the  souls  of  those  who  would  not  pro- 
nounce with  humble  reverence  and  belief  the  religious  formulas 
of  the  ages. 

It  is  a  matter  of  world  interest  that  the  teacher  of  today,  the 
real  teacher,  is  not  a  simple  pedagogue.  In  the  evolution  of 
aflFairs  he  shows  evidences  of  growth.  He  has  come  out  of  the 
dark  ages  and  carries  a  lamp  of  light;  he  guides  his  students  into 
realms,  known  and  unknown,  and  encourages  them  to  find  their 
way  out;  he  loves  home  and  neighbor,  language  and  law,  life  and 
belief.  Having  knowledge,  he  regards  himself  a  citizen  of  the 
world  of  geography  as  well  as  the  world  of  fact.  Getting  more 
knowledge  prepares  him  for  larger  living  in  world  thinking. 

With  the  martyr  spirit  teachers  have  gone,  and  are  going,  to 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  giving  instruction  in  the  ideals 
of  democracy  and  western  Christian  civilization.  To  the  schools 
of  Japan  thousands  of  Chinese  go  annually;  to  American  univer- 
sities and  those  of  Europe  young  students  of  the  whole  world 
are  wending  their  way.  To  Oxford  the  Rhodes  Scholars  go. 
Cosmopolitan  ideas  and  conduct  are  rapidly  supplanting  provin- 
cialism in  all  the  leading  nations.  The  interchange  of  professors, 
as  has  been  done  in  the  last  few  years  between  American  and 
European  universities,  furnishes  a  fine  field  for  respect  rather  than 
hate.  The  world  has  a  choice  example  of  international  courtesy 
and  good  will  in  the  return  of  the  Boxer  indemnity  fund,  out  of 


BROOKS  327 

which  now  several  hundred  Chinese  men  will  be  educated  annu- 
ally in  the  universities  of  America. 

The  modern  teacher  can  rule  the  world,  let  him  grip  and  be 
gripped  by  a  faith  in  some  policy,  and  that  policy  will  become 
world-wide  in  significance  and  power.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
propaganda  undertaken  with  much  hope  of  success  unless  its 
truth  has  entered  into  the  schoolrooms  of  the  world. 

National  existence  in  the  past  has  depended  on  force;  national 
existence  in  the  future  will  depend  on  a  square  deal.  Let  the 
teacher  of  history  teach  it. 

As  democracy  has  developed  in  the  light  of  liberty  it  has  re- 
quired of  each  citizen  to  yield  his  own  rights  where  they  were 
subversive  to  the  rights  of  others.  Individual  freedom  ends 
where  community  interests  begin.  Let  teachers  dwell  more  on 
the   rights  of  others. 

As  nations  have  grown  strong  in  the  out-reach  of  trade  and 
influence,  they  have  mutually  developed  each  other  into  a  com- 
munity of  governments.  Each  has  surrendered  some  right  of 
local  law  for  the  good  of  the  international  governments.  Let 
teachers  learn  international  law  and  teach  the  comity  of  nations. 

Governments  of  the  earth  will  never  thrive  any  more  on  the 
conquests  of  others;  world  wisdom  in  trade  and  world  religion 
setting  up  the  protector's  care  of  the  weak  will  not  suggest  it; 
world  consciousness  will  not  allow  it.  Let  the  schoolrooms 
proclaim  this  wholesome  gospel. 

There  never  was  a  war  settled  unless  by  one  side  yielding  to 
the  other.  Record  of  the  fact  was  made.  This  record  was  made 
firm  in  a  written  treaty  signed  by  the  contracting  parties.  It 
does  not  signifiy  that  the  right  prevailed,  only  that  the  strong 
won.  If  the  perpetuity  of  the  result  is  guaranteed  by  the  treaty, 
might  not  the  war  itself  have  been  kept  off  by  a  prior  treaty  or 
an  arbitration  of  the  troubles?  Let  teachers  show  forth  the 
beauty  of  life  and  not  so  much  the  glories  of  the  battlefields.  Let 
teachers  lead  their  students  into  an  appreciation  of  the  heroics 
of  moral  victories  in  the  paths  of  home  and  industrial  life.  Let 
them  show  forth  the  fact  that  there  can  be  as  much  manliness  in 


328  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

keeping  the  stroke  in  some  productive  labor  as  in  keeping  the 
step  on  the  drill  ground. 

Teachers  can  win  the  growing  child  to  the  fairness  of  a  game 
well  played.  He  learns  quickly  that  victory  in  a  game  does  not 
destroy  the  loser.  It  may  help  him;  not  so  the  war  that  maims 
or  destroys  the  vanquished.  Out  of  the  schools,  colleges  and 
universities,  the  future  statesmen  and  citizens  will  go.  They 
should  go  trained  aright.  Some  of  them  will  have  been  influenced 
by  the  moral  quality  found  in  peace  and  the  evangelizing  agencies 
of  it,  e.g.,  the  Student  Volunteer  Movement;  some  of  them  will 
be  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  gain  in  wealth  made  possible  by  trade 
uninterrupted  and  the  saving  of  unnecessary  taxation.  Let 
teachers  take  advantage  of  either  to  point  the  way  to  peace. 

Civilization  will  not  now  stand  for  some  things  which  were 
popular  with  our  ancestors.  The  duelist  is  banished.  So  ought 
the  modern  manufacturer  who  not  only  makes  war  goods  but 
by  flaming  head-lines,  by  paid  oratory,  and  by  organized  groups 
of  men  makes  international  wars  to  order. 

The  schoolroom  is  no  longer  the  place  for  the  timid  soul  who 
fears  to  smash  the  images  of  tradition.  Teachers  may  well  learn 
to  teach  what  ought  to  be,  as  well  as  what  has  been.  Service  to 
country  is  not  opposition  to  others.  Enemies  more  frequently 
live  within  than  without.  World-wide  trade  with  world-needed 
articles  is  a  harbinger  of  peace.  The  pirate  of  history  can  never 
more  be  idolized  in  story.  He  was  a  simple  robber.  School 
children  are  now  taught  it.  The  licensed  privateer  on  the  high 
seas  is  little  removed  from  the  pirate  in  the  thinking  of  some  of 
us.  All  school  children  should  be  taught  it.  Through  the  wide- 
spread news  agency  of  the. earth  there  are  few  state  secrets.  There 
needs  to  be  few.  Publicity  develops  knowledge;  knowledge 
develops  faith  in  each  other.  Public  opinion  is  moulded  by  the 
teacher  of  the  young.  Education  is  atmospheric  and  highly  vicar- 
ious. Let  public  opinion  and  education  run  in  the  same  channels. 
Let  the  constructive  character  of  peace  be  set  over  against  the 
destruction  of  war.  Let  the  embryonic  Napoleons  of  war  be 
transformed  into  the  captains  of  industry  and  social  development. 

It  took  a  greater  man  to  project  and  build  a  railroad  across  the 


BROOKS  329 

American  continent  than  to  march  an  army  across  the  Alps. 
Let  the  idealism  of  it  grip  the  student.  War  has  glamor  for  the 
officer  but  for  the  private  mere  duty  must  be  enthroned.  If  the 
private  in  the  army  marches  in  pride  may  his  energies  not  be  trans- 
formed into  service  of  industry  with  equal  fidelity  and  with  greater 
hopes  of  reward?  Service  in  the  army  hinders  the  making  of 
home,  dethrones  women  and  the  ideals  of  her  virtues,  mocks 
privacy  and  hinders  individual  initiative.  Service  in  industry 
allows  one  to  remain  in  home,  holds  up  the  true  ideals  of  wife  and 
mother  and  strengthens  initiative. 

If  we  enthrone  the  ideals  of  the  peace  propagandist,  we  may 
as  William  James  says:  "Inflame  the  civic  temper  as  past  his- 
tory has  inflamed  the  military  temper."  Let  us  follow  James. 
By  so  doing,  we  may  not  bring  the  millennium,  but  we  are  sure  to 
make  this  old  world  better. 

Let  every  teacher  understand  that  he  deals  with  worlds  in 
microcosm.  Each  schoolroom  is  full  of  future  citizens.  Each 
little  one  can  think  thoughts  and  see  facts  that  are  too  frequently 
dallied  with  by  a  prattle  of  words. 

The  world  is  a  unit  knit  together  by  bonds  of  steel.  No 
longer  do  walls  divide  us,  nor  mountains,  nor  rivers,  nor  oceans, 
nor  air. 

The  political  machinery  of  peace  has  two  parts,  federation  and 
arbitration.  No  teacher  in  the  world  ought  to  be  able  to  see 
this  so  easily  as  the  American.  He  has  before  him  the  federation 
of  the  original  thirteen  colonies,  bound  together  by  a  treaty,  or 
constitution,  made  up  of  mutual  concessions. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  has  never  been  free  of  its  corollary.  It 
forbids  any  European  government  taking  territory  here.  If 
other  nations  will  not  join,  surely  the  United  States  may  without 
hesitancy  propose  to  the  Republics  to  the  South  of  us  that  Uncle 
Sam  has  no  ulterior  end  in  view  in  the  future  regarding  them, 
that  they  may  unite  with  him  by  treaties  for  mutual  protection 
and  as  a  guarantee  among  all  nations  that  they  run  up  the  flag 
of  confidence  rather  than  distrust. 

Finally,  let  us  teach  the  parallelism  of  politics  and  government, 
religion  and  church.     Let  it  be  sounded  forth  in  every  high  school, 


330  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

college  and  university  in  the  world  that  politics  is  to  government 
as  religion  is  to  the  church,  that  government  is  to  the  peace  of  the 
world  as  the  church  is  to  the  evangelization  of  the  world,  that 
whatever  helps  politics  helps  government,  and  whatever  helps 
religion  helps  the  church,  that  whatever  helps  either  at  home  helps 
both  at  home  and  abroad.  Let  us  teach  well  the  old  Latin  pro- 
verb that  "By  concord  the  weakest  things  grow  strong,  by  dis- 
cord  the   strongest   totter." 

Let  us  teach  the  fallacy  of  the  doctrine  so  widely  advocated, 
that  if  you  wish  peace  prepare  for  war.  On  the  contrary,  si  vis 
pacem  para  pacem. 

Chairman  Noble:     The  morning  session  is  now  adjourned. 


ADJOURNED 


SEVENTH  SESSION 
Friday  Afternoon,  May  5,  at  Two-Thirty  O'clock 
John  W.  Foster,  Presiding  Officer 

Chairman  Foster:  Before  introducing  the  speakers  who  are 
to  occupy  your  attention  this  afternoon,  I  desire  to  make  a  few 
remarks  upon  a  subject  which  I  regard  as  quite  germane  to  the 
objects  of  the  present  Congress. 

In  the  intercourse  of  our  country  with  foreign  nations  it  is  our 
first  and  most  important  duty  to  preserve  the  peace  and  culti- 
vate relations  of  friendship  with  our  coterminous  neighbors. 
And  yet  within  the  last  few  weeks  we  have  seen  local  disturbances 
in  the  northern  States  of  Mexico  fanned  into  the  flames  of  war 
along  the  boundary  line,  and  our  entire  population  astounded  by 
the  rapid  concentration  on  the  frontier  of  a  large  portion  of  our 
army  equipped  for  hostile  operations.  Those  best  informed  tell 
us  that  this  lamentable  condition  of  affairs  has  been  brought  about 
largely  by  the  abuse  by  foreigners  of  the  contiguous  territory  of 
the  United  States  and  by  the  active  participation  of  American 
citizens.  Great  quantities  of  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  evading 
our  customs  houses,  have  been  surreptitiously  introduced  into 
Mexico.  Large  numbers  of  American  citizens,  both  singly  and 
in  bands,  accoutered  for  war,  have  openly  crossed  the  frontier 
and  joined  the  forces  which  are  seeking  to  overthrow  a  government 
with  which  we  are  at  peace;  and  when  worsted  in  battle  have 
sought  a  refuge  within  our  borders,  only  to  return  at  will  and  take 
part  in  a  contest  in  which  we  should  properly  be  neutral.  A 
so  styled  "provisional  Governor  of  Chihuahua"  has  openly  estab- 
lished his  office  at  El  Paso,  Texas,  and  therefrom  issued  his 
orders  and  carried  on  warlike  correspondence  across  the  frontier; 
while  insurrectionary  chiefs  in  other  localities  on  American  ter- 

331 


332  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ritory  were  actively  plotting  against  the  established  government 
of  Mexico. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  consider  the  merits  of  the 
controversy  in  Mexico,  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  condition  of 
affairs  on  our  side  of  the  southern  border.  Every  patriotic  Amer- 
ican citizen  who  has  regard  for  the  honor  of  his  country  and  its 
reputation  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  must  deplore  these 
events,  and  inquire  whether  there  is  not  a  remedy  for  them.  I 
am  satisfied  that  there  has  been  a  sincere  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  President  and  his  Cabinet  to  enforce  a  strict  observance  of 
our  neutrality  laws.  I  am  not  so  certain  that  a  similar  spirit  has 
existed  on  the  part  of  the  local  authorities,  either  Federal  or  State, 
along  the  frontier,  where  the  popular  sentiment  seems  to  be  largely 
on  the  side  of  the  insurrectionists.  But  whether  or  not  the  neu- 
trality laws  have  been  strictly  enforced,  it  is  plain  to  any  student 
of  our  history  who  has  given  attention  to  the  subject  that  they 
are  antiquated  and  are  in  great  need  of  revision  and  enlargement. 

Our  first  neutrality  act  was  passed  during  Washington's  first 
administration,  and  were  put  into  their  present  shape  in  1818. 
At  the  time  of  their  enactment  they  marked  a  great  advance  in 
international  law  and  practice,  and  gained  for  our  country  much 
credit.  But  they  have  proved  to  be  too  limited  in  their  scope. 
At  that  time  our  land  frontier  both  on  the  north  and  the  south 
was  very  sparsely  settled.  Our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
was  then  almost  entirely  by  sea,  and  an  examination  of  our  neu- 
trality code  shows  that  it  applies  chiefly  to  maritime  matters. 
The  great  development  of  our  population  both  on  the  Mexican 
and  Canadian  border  requires  a  reexamination  of  the  neutrality 
laws  by  our  legislative  and  executive  departments.  • 

The  attention  of  Congress  has  been  repeatedly  called  to  this 
subject,  and  that  body  has  been  urged  to  the  adoption  of  stricter 
measures  to  enable  the  Executive  to  more  fully  discharge  its 
international  duties  of  neutrality.  Following  the  embarrassments 
on  our  southern  frontier  attending  the  independence  of  Texas, 
and  on  our  northern%order  by  the  Canadian  rebellion,  in  1838 
President  VanBuren  in  a  special  message  laid  before  Congress 
the  defective  character  of  our  neutrality  laws,  and  asked  that 


FOSTER 


333 


these  laws  be  thoroughly  revised  and  enlarged  in  order  "to  vest 
in  the  Executive  full  power  to  prevent  injuries  being  inflicted  upon 
neighboring  nations  by  the  unauthorized  and  unlawful  acts  of 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  other  persons  who  may  be 
within  our  jurisdiction  and  subject  to  our  control."  And  later 
in  his  administration  he  repeated  these  recommendations.  The 
Fenian  plotting  in  our  territory  and  the  raids  into  Canada  led 
President  Arthur  in  1884  to  urge  again  upon  Congress  "the 
prompt  and  thorough  treatment  of  the  question,  which"  he  said, 
"intimately  concerns  the  national  honor." 

Notwithstanding  these  urgent  appeals  to  Congress,  the  neu- 
trality laws  of  1 8 18  remain  unaltered  with  all  the  defects  pointed 
out  by  successive  presidents.  The  fact  that  defective  legislation 
does  not  relieve  or  excuse  a  nation  from  discharging  its  inter- 
national obligations  was  made  very  clear  after  our  Civil  War, 
when  our  government  announced  to  that  of  Great  Britain  that 
"no  sovereign  power  can  rightfully  plead  the  defects  of  its  own 
domestic  penal  statutes  as  justification  or  extenuation  of  an  inter- 
national wrong  to  another  sovereign  power"  and  the  Geneva 
Arbitration  Tribunal  confirmed  this  principle  by  inflicting  upon 
Great  Britain  a  penalty  of  $15,500,000  because  of  its  defective 
legislation  and  neglect  of  its  international  duty.  Great  Britain 
recognized  the  justice  of  our  complaint,  made  a  thorough  revision 
of  her  laws,  and  now  stands  at  the  front  of  the  nations  in  her  neu- 
trality legislation.  Unless  we  follow  her  example,  we  shall  con- 
tinue to  expose  ourselves  to  the  just  complaints  and  reclamations 
of  Mexico  and  Canada, 

The  time  at  my  disposal  will  not  allow  me  to  enter  into  a  full 
discussion  of  the  changes  called  for  by  our  defective  neutrality 
laws,  but  I  venture  to  suggest  briefly  three  modifications. 

First,  Some  restriction  should  be  placed  upon  the  free  commerce 
as  a  mercantile  commodity  of  arms  and  munitions  of  war;  and 
power  should  be  conferred  upon  the  President  to  limit  or  suspend, 
in  his  discretion,  their  export  across  the  border  in  time  of  dis- 
turbance or  insurrection. 

Second,  It  should  be  made  unlawful  for  Americans  to  enter  the 
military  service  of  any  power  or  chief  at  war  with  a  nation  with 


334     '  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

which  we  are  at  peace.  It  was  the  personal  aid  of  Americans  that 
gave  strength  to  the  Canadian  rebellion  in  1838,  to  the  late  insur- 
rection in  Mexico,  and  to  the  recent  civil  wars  in  Nicaragua  and 
Honduras.  In  this  respect  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
other  countries  are  in  advance  of  ours.  The  British  Foreign 
Enlistment  Act  of  1870  makes  it  unlawful  for  any  British  subject 
to  enter  the  military  service  of  any  power  at  war  with  a  nation 
with  which  its  government  is  at  peace;  and  it  subjects  them  to 
heavy  fines  and  imprisonment.  In  all  its  neutrality  proclamations 
on  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities  in  other  nations,  the  British 
government  notifies  its  subjects  of  the  penalties  they  will  incur 
under  their  own  laws,  and  it  further  warns  them  that  they  will 
enter  such  foreign  service  at  their  own  peril,  in  no  wise  obtain  any 
protection  from  their  own  government,  and  must  suffer  such  pen- 
alties as  the  enemy  may  inflict  upon  them.  We  certainly  should 
do  no  less  than  this. 

Third,  Greater  power  should  be  conferred  upon  the  President, 
in  time  of  civil  disturbance  on  the  frontier,  to  limit  or  prohibit 
intercourse  across  the  border,  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  our  terri- 
tory by  foreign  conspirators,  and  in  his  discretion  to  enforce  mar- 
tial law  on  our  soil  within  the  zone  of  disturbance. 

We  had  a  foretaste  during  our  Civil  War  of  what  an  unfriendly 
neutrality  may  do  to  aid  our  domestic  enemies.  The  conserva- 
tive government  of  Mexico  allowed  the  free  entrance  through 
Matamoros  and  across  the  Rio  Grande  of  unlimited  warlike  sup- 
plies for  the  Southern  armies.  The  Confederate  agents  in  Can- 
ada, harbored  by  a  sympathetic  government,  were  enabled  to 
raid  and  burn  towns,  loot  banks,  seize  and  destroy  steamers  on 
the  Great  Lakes,  and  threaten  the  destruction  of  New  York  and 
Chicago.  Should  internal  strife  again  unhappily  visit  our  fair 
land;  the  recent  occurrences  on  the  Mexican  frontier  suggest  what 
an  imperfect  neutrality  might  allow  to  be  inflicted  upon  us.  Is 
it  not  time  we  set  our  own  house  in  order,  as  we  exhort  other  na- 
tions to  international  peace  and  good  will? 

I  will  now  introduce  Prof.  Samuel  T.  Dutton,  of  Columbia 
University,  who  has  been  for  many  years  well  known  for  his  ser- 
v"ces  in  he  cause  of  education  and  of  late  a  prominent  factor  in 
the  peace  movement  in  New  York. 


BUTTON  335 

THE  NEWER  PROPAGANDA  FOR  PEACE 

SAMUEL   T.    BUTTON 

It  is  generally  considered  that  the  growth  of  civil  government 
IS  favorable  for  world  peace.  As  education  becomes  more  uni- 
versal and  more  free,  and  as  the  people  participate  more  fully  in 
public  affairs,  there  is  an  increased  capacity  for  understanding 
and  appreciating  what  peace  means,  But  even  in  the  most  intel- 
ligent nations  there  is  still  so  much  apathy  and  so  much  ignorance 
that  the  masses  can  hardly  be  counted  upon  in  civic  affairs  at 
home,  much  less  in  world  politics.  Hence  in  democratic  commu- 
nities we  often  see  wrongs  committed  and  injustice  and  greed 
winning  easy  victories.  Under  such  conditions  the  attitude  of 
men  toward  international  affairs  is  likely  to  be  one  of  indifference. 
You  can  hardly  expect  people  who  do  not  exert  themselves  on  the 
side  of  honesty  and  fair-dealing  in  local  and  State  affairs  to  be 
alert  or  enthusiastic  respecting  those  problems  which  call  for  an 
intelligence  and  a  patriotism  transcending  the  bounds  of  State 
or  nation.  Neither  can  you  expect  to  find  an  active  public  senti- 
ment which  in  times  of  great  moment  will  exert  a  commanding 
influence  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  When  in  1897  a  general 
arbitration  treaty  had  been  arranged  between  the  United  States 
and  England  and  the  supreme  moment  had  arrived  when  the 
United  States  Senate  was  called  upon  to  vote  "Yes"  or  "No," 
what  evidence  have  we  that  Senators  were  influenced  to  any 
considerable  extent  by  the  opinion  of  their  constituents  or  that 
the  country  as  a  whole  was  alive  to  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion at  issue?  We  have  had  two  world  conferences  at  The  Hague 
in  which  important  conventions  were  arranged  and  forward  steps 
were  taken  toward  the  establishment  of  international  justice  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  delegates  from  England  or  Germany 
or  the  United  States  were  stimulated  or  urged  forward  by  any 
strong  volume  of  public  opinion.  They  had  their  instructions 
from  their  several  governments  and  to  carry  these  out  faithfully 
was  considered  enough.  Several  important  matters  affecting 
the  international  movement  are  now  pending,  such  as  the  Peace 


336  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Commission  already  provided  for  by  Congress;  the  unlimited 
arbitration  treaty  with  England  which  is  likely  soon  to  go  again 
before  our  Senate;  the  degree  of  cooperation  which  other  nations 
will  be  permitted  and  expected  to  share  in  the  use  and  protection 
of  the  Panama  Canal.  Then  there  is  the  great  problem  of  organ- 
izing the  program  for  the  Third  Hague  Conference  and  the  pos- 
sibihty  of  discovering  some  way  of  tempering  international  sus- 
picions so  that  the  frightful  burden  involved  in  the  increase  of 
armaments  may  be  lifted. 

The  press,  it  must  be  admitted,  and  it  certainly  is  cause  for 
rejoicing,  has  shown  during  the  past  five  years  an  increasing  read- 
iness to  aid  in  peace  propaganda.  This  is  a  distinct  gain  and  an 
augury  of  success.  The  press  is  a  mighty  force  and  ought  to  lead 
and  assist  in  the  education  of  the  people  but  we  must  not  deceive 
ourselves  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  masses  are  awakened  to 
the  necessity  of  standing  for  international  friendship  and  of 
resisting  every  suggestion  pointing  in  the  other  direction.  The 
average  man  reads  about  the  things  in  which  he  is  interested  and 
as  far  as  my  personal  acquaintance  goes  his  preference  for  peace 
rather  than  war  is  not  pronounced.  I  do  not  believe  that  one  in 
a  hundred  of  the  voters  in  the  United  States  has  at  this  moment 
any  adequate  knowledge  of  that  hundred-year  old  controversy 
over  the  Newfoundland  Fisheries  which  was  so  amicably  and  so 
satisfactorily  settled  last  year.  The  fact  is  that  people  of  this 
country  and  of  all  countries  need  education.  There  must  be 
propaganda  carefully  organized  and  directed  and  persistently 
applied  until  the  body  politic  is  charged  with  a  new  spirit.  The 
Russian  revolutionist  more  than  any  other  propagandist  at  the 
present  time  appreciates  the  need  of  continuous  and  vigorous 
preaching  and  teaching  of  the  ideas  to  which  he  is  committed. 
He  knows  that  the  only  hope  of  success  lies  in  the  enlightenment 
and  the  quickening  of  the  sluggish  minds  of  his  fellow-citizens 
to  feeling  and  a  faith  in  the  new  regime.  In  the  same  way  our 
fellow-citizens  need  to  be  aroused  respecting  the  moral,  economic, 
and  political  phases  of  international  relations.  They  need  to  be 
impressed  with  the  moral  grandeur  of  a  world  united  in  seeking 
the  good  of  mankind  and  of  governments  honestly,  sincerely, 


\ 


DUTTON 


337 


devoutly  striving  to  establish   justice   and   abolish   forever  the 
thought  of  violence. 

It  is  evident  that  the  hour  has  arrived  when  the  gospel  of  peace 
must  be  widely  and  earnestly  preached.  Some  may  think  that 
diplomacy  may  be  equal  to  the  task  of  binding  the  nations  to- 
gether; others  may  believe  that  money  applied  in  the  scientific 
study  of  war  and  its  causes  will  reveal  a  remedy.  Both  of  these 
things  are  important  but  will  be  entirely  inadequate.  Mr.  Nor- 
man Angell  thinks  that  the  economic  relations  of  nations  instead 
of  inviting  war  are  tending  to  make  it  impossible  and  in  case  war 
occurs,  the  victor  can  gain  no  advantage  which  is  not  more  than 
offset  by  his  losses.  If  this  is  true  or  even  partly  true,  the  news 
ought  to  be  carried  to  every  hamlet  in  the  country  so  that  when 
the  next  war  scare  comes  the  people  may  intelligently  resist  its 
insidious  and  seductive  influence. 

Doubtless  many  influences  are  working  for  the  establishment 
of  perpetual  peace.  Human  progress  and  the  growth  of  the  in- 
stitutions of  civilization  are  charged  with  that  altruism  and  with 
that  sense  of  solidarity  which  are  fundamental  in  the  peace  move- 
ment. Men  and  women  the  world  over  must  apprehend  and 
appreciate  these  things.  Hence  the  tremendous  need  that  clergy- 
men, publicists,  social  reformers,  jurists,  educators,  as  well  as  men 
of  science  and  leaders  of  commerce  should  declare  the  gospel  of 
peace  so  that  everywhere,  in  church,  in  State,  and  school,  and  in 
civic  assembly,  the  public  mind  and  the  public  conscience  are 
summoned  to  action. 

The  five  hundred  peace  societies  of  the  world  are  doing  much 
but  their  work  as  yet  lacks  organization  and  direction.  Those 
who  are  able  to  finance  the  peace  cause  may  justly  insist  that  the 
peace  forces  in  this  country  should  be  federated  upon  a  basis  of 
equality  and  cooperation  that  the  whole  land  may  be  covered  and 
that  such  a  wise,  constructive  and  educative  program  of  propa- 
ganda be  organized  as  will  give  the  United  States  distinction  and 
enable  her  to  take  a  place  of  leadership  along  the  new  path. 

Assuming  that  this  may  be  brought  about,  what  shall  be  the 
nature  of  the  propaganda  which  in  the  pulpit,  on  the  platform, 
through  the  press  by  means  of  books  and  tracts  is  to  be  presented? 


338  THIRP   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

In  the  light  of  what  I  have  said  it  must  appear  that  the  old  prop- 
aganda— moral,  economic,  humanitarian,  are  always  new  until 
the  mind  and  the  heart  of  men  have  grasped  their  deeper  meaning. 
To  most  people  it  will  come  as  a  new  idea  that  the  age  of  war  has 
passed,  that  as  we  can  see  in  Europe  today  vast  museums  full  of 
ancient  and  mediaeval  weapons  kept  as  souvenirs  of  the  barbaric 
past,  so  it  may  be  predicted  that  a  few  years  hence  the  horrid 
engines  of  destruction  which  modern  genius  and  science  are  con- 
structing will  be  objects  of  historic  interest  rather  than  of  practical 
use. 

There  will  be,  unless  all  signs  fail,  no  more  racial  wars.  The 
great  Congress  of  Races  to  be  held  for  the  first  time  in  London  in 
July  at  which  fifty  nations  are  to  be  represented  gives  promise 
that  in  time  race  prejudice,  especially  the  sort  that  has  caused 
war,  will  be  absolutely  eliminated  from  the  world.  Even  in  the 
Turkish  Empire  which  has  been  for  hundreds  of  years  a  melting- 
pot  for  all  peoples  there  is,  under  the  new  regime,  a  good  degree 
of  racial  peace  and  friendship.  Again,  there  are  to  be  no  more 
religious  wars.  Religious  toleration  is  universal  except  in  Russia 
and  it  is  worth  noticing  that  that  nation  has  earned  the  disap- 
proval of  other  nations  for  the  racial  injustice  which  it  practices. 

Wars  of  races  and  religion  having  passed,  it  can  be  shown  that 
nothing  remains  to  cause  war  except  national  cupidity  or  some 
fancied  insult  of  national  honor.  Thus  it  can  be  shown  that  war 
has  no  place  in  a  system  of  modern  justice  and  that  the  time  is 
rapidly  approaching  when  the  conscience  and  reason  of  the  world 
will  demand  that  every  dispute  whatsoever  shall  be  settled  in  a 
court  of  arbitral  justice.  As  the  gospel  of  world  redemption  is 
always  new,  so  the  doctrine  of  peace  on  earth,  good  will  to  men, 
will  never  lose  its  vitalizing  and  uplifting  power. 

All  propaganda  respecting  the  desired  reduction  of  armies  and 
navies  should  never  overlook  the  peculiar  conditions  of  central 
Europe.  The  historic  position  of  the  military  establishments  in 
their  social  and  political  relations  constitutes  a  most  difficult 
phase  of  our  problem.  Such  institutions  so  deeply  rooted  in  the 
national  life  must  be  treated  with  a  degree  of  respect  and  even  if 
military  men  are  slow  to  recognize  the  victories  of  peace,  let  us 


BUTTON 


339 


give  them  the  consideration  which  they  deserve.  In  our  zeal  to 
see  the  world  organized  upon  the  plane  of  honor  and  justice,  we 
forget  that  in  times  past  we  have  had  to  defend  the  integrity  of 
the  nation  and  have  helped  to  control  disorders  elsewhere.  It  is 
only  just  to  say  that  many  of  highest  rank  in  both  army  and  navy 
are  opposed  to  war  and  are  among  the  most  outspoken  lovers  of 
peace.  I  was  sorry  to  see  in  the  Army  and  Navy  Journal  of 
August  2oth  an  editorial  which  attacked  very  strongly  the  work 
undertaken  by  the  School  Peace  League  of  teaching  the  children 
and  youth  of  the  land  those  things  which  make  for  good  will  to- 
ward those  of  other  lands.  Some  may  be  overzealous  and  unwise 
in  the  use  of  such  propaganda  but  the  general  plan  of  emphasiz- 
ing in  the  teaching  of  history  those  factors  which  relate  to  the 
economic,  civic,  and  social  welfare  of  the  nation  and  the  mini- 
mizing of  war  as  a  factor  in  human  progress,  will,  I  am  sure,  receive 
the  commendation  of  all  thoughtful  people.  The  new  propaganda 
should  discriminate  clearly  between  that  large  number  of  officers 
of  the  army  and  navy  who  recognize  that  the  world  is  being 
changed  to  a  condition  where  war  is  unnecessary  and  rejoice  in  it 
and  the  few  who  deride  and  impugn  the  motives  and  methods  of 
peace  workers.  The  new  propaganda  will  interpret  and  enforce 
the  idea  of  a  league  of  peace  so  often  urged  by  Mr.  Carnegie  and 
clearly  stated  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  his  Christiania  address.  The 
idea  is  not  new  except  to  large  numbers  who  have  given  it  no 
thought  whatever.  Reduced  to  its  simplest  terms  it  means  that 
while  nations  may  employ  force  to  suppress  disorders  within 
their  own  borders,  unlawful  conduct  on  the  part  of  any  nation 
ajBfecting  other  nations  shall  be  taken  in  hand  by  an  international 
force  under  the  direction  of  the  league. 

The  propagandist  may  show  the  diminishing  importance  of 
physical  force  in  the  world  as  compared  with  that  of  moral  force. 
It  is  moral  power  that  is  lifting  up  the  backward  peoples  and  mak- 
ing some  of  the  great  nations  that  have  long  been  dormant  arouse 
themselves  for  new  action.  In  China,  Turkey,  Cuba,  Porto  Rico, 
and  the  Philippines  we  see  this  moral  awakening. 

The  United  States  can  do  nothing  better  than  to  help  China 
in  every  possible  way  to  establish  representative  government. 


340  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

She  needs  this  help  and  deserves  it.  She  is  a  peaceful  nation. 
The  civilized  world  should  frown  upon  any  procedure  which  com- 
pels China  to  waste  her  substance  in  defending  her  territory  from 
aggression  or  in  maintaining  her  self-respect.  The  same  kind  of 
sympathy  and  support  should  go  out  to  the  Young  Turks  who 
are  trying  to  join  together  the  heterogeneous  elements  of  which 
the  Empire  is  composed  on  a  basis  of  toleration  and  civic  cooper- 
ation. All  attempts  to  cheat  them,  to  extort  territory  or  unjust 
concessions  or  otherwise  to  exploit  them  for  selfish  ends  should  be 
condemned  by  international  public  sentiment. 

Another  theme  which  has  not  received  the  attention  it  deserves 
is  the  moral  and  social  influence  of  conscription.  It  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  show  that  it  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  individ- 
ual liberty;  it  does  not  encourage  but  suppresses  true  patriotism, 
it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  slavery,  which  the  Christian  world 
has  abolished. 

Some  are  deeply  concerned  regarding  the  destiny  of  military 
and  naval  officers  if  war  is  made  impossible.  There  is  no  need  of 
alarm,  for  such  officers  have  received  a  scientific  training.  There 
will  always  be  strenuous  work  for  all  such.  The  conservation  of 
natural  resources,  the  construction  of  great  public  works,  the 
national  and  international  control  and  uplifting  of  backward 
peoples,  scientific  work  in  battling  with  famine  and  pestilence — 
these  offer  a  field  large  enough  for  all  competent  men.  While 
schools  of  military  and  naval  science  would  need  to  change  their 
curriculum  somewhat,  they  may  still  go  on  training  men  for  con- 
structive, humanitarian  work. 

Among  the  newer  propaganda  is  the  possibility  of  extending 
the  principle  of  the  neutralization  of  territory  to  keep  pace  with 
the  advancement  of  public  opinion  in  the  direction  of  world  unity 
and  cooperation.  Few  know  that  Switzerland,  the  Suez  Canal, 
and  various  other  portions  of  the  world  have  long  been  neutral- 
ized and  that  there  never  has  been  any  serious  difficulty  arising  in 
regard  to  this  arrangement.  The  neutralization  of  the  Philippines 
is  well  worth  considering  as  a  possibility.  In  short,  it  may  be 
thus  possible  to  neutralize  all  the  oceans  and  waterways  of  the 
world.     This  idea  is  certainly  worth  our  study  and  discussion. 


BUTTON  341 

While  there  can  probably  be  no  immediate  limitation  of  arm- 
aments in  Europe,  the  United  States  may  well  set  an  example 
and  while  there  is  little  danger  of  war,  the  danger  of  increasing 
poverty  and  human  suffering  because  of  the  economic  waste  now 
incurred  calls  for  energetic  appeal  and  protest.  A  nation  may 
commit  national  suicide  as  Spain  and  Portugal  have  done,  but  that 
is  not  the  worst  of  it.  Men,  women  and  children  live  in  ignor- 
ance, squalor,  and  abject  hopelessness.  This  condition  is  the 
heritage'  of  the  warlike  past.  It  is  to  be  seen  not  merely  in  south- 
ern Europe,  but  to  a  considerable  extent  in  Great  Britain  and 
central  Europe.  The  propagandist  may  not  be  able  to  prove 
that  rifles  and  cannon  are  unnecessary,  but  he  can  revive  that 
ancient  cry  of  a  condemned  soul,  "Am  I  my  brother's  keeper?" — 
or  that  lawyer's  question — "Who  is  my  neighbor?" — and  that 
universal  answer  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  who  showed  that  all  en- 
mity is  to  be  brushed  aside  to  make  way  for  deeds  of  mercy  and 
of  helpfulness.  In  struggle  and  striving  the  world  is  gradually 
yielding  to  the  greatest  of  all  commandments,  "Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 

In  closing  I  will  briefly  suggest  some  of  the  topics  about  which 
the  masses  are  to  be  instructed,  to  wit: 

The  relation  of  Christianity  to  peace. 

The  duty  of  all  churches  and  the  clergy. 

The  philanthropic  aspects  of  progress  toward  peace. 

A  comparison  of  the  twentieth  century  with  the  seventeenth, 
eighteenth,  and  nineteenth  as  to  war  and  its  decadence. 

Ancient  and  modern  forms  of  heroism  and  the  fallacies  regard- 
ing the  necessity  of  war  as  a  moral  tonic. 

The  financial,  economic,  and  educational  restraints  upon  the 
war  spirit. 

The  relation  of  war  scares  to  original  sin  and  pure  cussedness. 

The  justification  of  wage-earners  and  socialists  in  demanding 
that  governments  agree  to  the  judicial  settlement  of  all  disputes. 

The  need  of  peace  commissions  in  every  country  working  sep- 
arately and  collectively  to  arrange  the  new  order. 

The  need  of  a  thorough  re-organization  of  the  peace  forces  of  the 
United  States  under  the  advice  of  a  representative  national  council. 


342  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  propriety  of  asking  the  United  States  government,  which 
spent  in  the  year  1910  $443,000,000  for  war  and  pensions,  to 
appropriate  annually  $1,000,000  for  peace,  to  be  expended  by  a 
commission  appointed  by  the  President. 

This  is  only  adding  the  touch  of  practicality  and  of  sincerity 
to  those  memorable  words  spoken  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  at  Christiania, 
and  with  these  I  will  close  this  paper: 

"Granted  sincerity  of  purpose,  the  great  Powers  of  the  world 
should  find  no  insurmountable  difficulty  in  reaching  an  agreement 
which  would  put  an  end  to  the  present  costly  and  growing  extrav- 
agance of  expenditure  on  naval  armaments  and  it  would  be  a 
master  stroke  if  those  great  Powers  honestly  bent  on  peace  would 
form  a  League  of  Peace." 

Chairman  Foster:  Reverend  Frederick  Lynch,  of  New  York, 
desires  to  mention  an  important  matter. 

Rev.  Frederick  Lynch:  I  was  asked  by  the  officers  of  the 
Conference  if  I  would  not  do  what  it  seems  eminently  fitting  we 
should  do  on  this  occasion,  just  to  bear  our  testimony  to  one  of 
the  greatest  friends  of  peace  who  has  passed  away  while  this 
Congress  was  in  session.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Paulson,  of  the  Heckla 
Iron  Works  of  Brooklyn,  New  York.  Mr.  Ginn  led  the  way 
toward  helping  this  great  movement  and  Mr.  Carnegie  followed. 
Mr.  Paulson  got  the  idea  from  him,  and  said  that  he  wanted  to 
leave  several  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  to  establish  closer 
and  better  relations  between  the  countries  of  the  world.  He 
came  here  from  Denmark  some  sixty  years  ago  and  has  built  up 
a  great  fortune,  and  I  think  you  will  hear  that  practically  all  of 
that  vast  fortune  is  to  be  used  to  bring  students  from  Scandi- 
navia and  Norway  to  America  and  give  them  the  best  that  the 
United  States  has  to  give,  and  when  they  go  back  they  will  be 
permanent  friends  of  the  United  States  in  Europe,  and  thus  will 
be  established  closer  and  more  intimate  bonds  between  the  two 
nations.  I  think  it  is  fitting  that  we  should  recognize  this  great 
man's  name  here.  I  wish  we  could  pass  resolutions  for  his  family, 
but  he  has  no  family,  none  in  this  country  anyhow,  and  it  is  a 


CLEWS 


343 


beautiful  thing  that  as  he  dies  he  leaves  his  money  to  this  great 
cause,  which  is  the  cause  of  the  twentieth  century,  and  I  want  to 
put  this  Conference  on  record  as  showing  its  gratitude  and 
appreciation  of  this  great  act. 

Chairman  Foster:  I  am  again  instructed  to  interrupt  the 
printed  program  by  the  announcement  that  the  Hon.  Henry 
Clews,  a  delegate  from  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce 
has  arrived  in  this  city,  but  must  return  this  afternoon  to  New 
York,  and  it  is  desirous  that  he. be  heard  for  a  few  minutes.  Mr. 
Clews  negotiated  the  sale  of  the  first  Civil  War  bonds  in  1861 
by  a  commission  direct  from  Abraham  Lincoln.  He  is  now  nego- 
tiating for  peace  under  President  Taft.  He  has  been  for  fifty 
years  a  banker  in  New  York.  You  had  yesterday  the  scheme  of 
another  New  York  banker  to  stop  wars,  which  looked  to  me  to  be 
very  feasible.  I  expect  Mr.  Clews  might  endorse  such  a  propo- 
sition.    Permit  me  to  introduce  him. 


ADDRESS  OF  MR.  HENRY  CLEWS 

Last  week  we  celebrated  the  birthday  of  him  who  immortal- 
ized himself  in  what,  to  those  who  fought  on  both  sides  of  it, 
seemed  to  be  a  righteous  war;  yet  the  four  words  which  will  always 
be  most  closely  associated  with  his  memory — "Let  us  have  peace !" 
will  outrank  in  importance  all  his  utterances  as  general,  and  later 
as  President,  and  even  his  ablest  state  papers. 

I  wish  that  General  Grant  might  have  lived  long  enough  to 
know  that  a  commission  of  the  English-speaking  nations  is  unit- 
ing in  an  effort  to  secure  an  enduring  peace,  and  an  amicable 
settlement  of  all  disputes  of  nations  by  arbitration.  His  hand 
which  grasped  the  sword,  and  so  ably  directed  the  forces  engaged 
in  deadly  strife,  would  gladly  wield  the  pen  in  favor  of  peace  with 
honor. 

As  highly  as  I  value  universal  peace,  and  as  much  as  I  hope  for    ] 
its  consummation,  I  do  not  think  it  advisable  to  stop  the  build- 
ing of  warships,  or  the  fortifying  of  any  weak  spots  on  our  coasts  i 


344  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

until  we  have  our  treaties  signed  and  our  fond  hopes  are  positive 
certainties.  The  best  preventive  of  war,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, is  being  ready  for  war.  When  the  Panama  Canal  is 
finished  a  foothold  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Isthmus  will  be  a  tempt- 
ing bait  to  some  of  the  great  Powers,  and  I  favor  the  building  of 
impregnable  forts  to  guard  this  gateway  between  the  oceans.  The 
canal  will  belong  to  us  and  we  should  make  it  stronger  than  Gib- 
raltar, and  I  believe  that  in  their  hearts  all  the  statesmen  of 
Europe  would  think  it  folly  if  we  did  not  take  these  precautions. 
As  a  man  takes  out  a  fire  insurance  policy  hoping  and  believing 
that  he  will  never  have  to  collect  it,  so  we  should  fortify  our  ports 
as  insurance  against  the  unexpected. 

I  do  not  expect  that  anyone  will  be  robbed  or  assaulted  in  the 
block  where  I  reside,  but  I  am  willing  to  be  taxed  proportionately 
to  have  a  policeman  on  that  beat,  and  I  certainly  want  to  know 
that   one   is   there. 

It  is  but  a  few  short  years  since  organized  effort  was  made  to 
unite  with  other  countries  in  favor  of  arbitration  and  the  aboli- 
tion of  war.  If  it  had  been  suggested  by  the  weaker  nations  it 
might  have  been  attributed  to  cowardice;  but  when  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  join  hands  in  proposing  a  treaty  in  fur- 
therance of  this  great  cause,  it  is  courageous  action  which  will 
meet  the  approval  in  time  of  all  righteous  people  in  every  country. 
Just  think  of  a  congress  of  nations  banded  together  to  abolish 
war!  When  the  project  becomes  a  fact,  think  of  the  internal 
improvements  for  the  comfort  of  citizens  that  can  be  paid  for 
with  the  money  now  used  in  the  support  of  armies  and  navies. 
Socialists  talk  of  the  abolition  of  poverty.  Certainly  the  monies 
spent  to  sustain  a  war  footing  would  go  far  towards  relieving  the 
poor.  Good  roads,  pure  water  and  public  parks  would  yield 
more  in  comfort  to  our  fellow  men  than  dreadnoughts  and  12-inch 
guns.  AH  of  this  is  but  a  dream  at  present,  but  the  foundation 
has  been  laid  for  lasting  peace;  and  while  some  of  us  may  not  live 
to  see  the  end  of  our  work,  our  children  and  their  children  will  be 
proud  to  say  that  they  are  descendants  of  those  who  were  instru- 
mental in  promoting  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  towards  men 
by  settling  disputes  about  national  questions  by  argument,  rather 
than  by  bullets  and  bayonets. 


CLEWS  345 

Just  at  this  time  the  civil  strife  in  Mexico  recalls  to  our  mind 
very  vividly  the  horrors  of  war  and  the  necessity  of  settling  dis- 
putes by  peaceful  methods.  It  is  fitting  that  the  influence  of 
our  wise  President  should  be  thrown  in  favor  of  a  settlement  of 
the  Mexican  troubles.  The  sending  of  our  troops  to  the  border 
line  to  protect  our  own  territory  from  outlaw  raiders,  and  also 
to  enforce  the  neutrality  laws,  as  well  as  to  be  in  readiness  for 
drastic  action  in  case  of  the  necessity  of  protecting  the  lives  and 
property  interests  of  our  own  citizens  or  innocent  foreigners,  is 
an  exemplification  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and 
should  be  considered  by  the  people  of  both  nations  as  a  guarantee 
of  continued  peace.  Hence  our  army,  being  strewn  all  along  the 
dividing  line  of  both  countries,  instead  of  proving  a  menace,  is 
really  exactly  the  reverse. 

If  President  Taft  had  stood  idly  by  and  allowed  matters  to  take 
their  course  until  some  actual  breaking  of  the  neutrality  laws  had 
been  reported,  it  is  possible  that  some  European  Power  would 
have  landed  troops  on  Mexican  soil,  and  might  have  demanded 
a  slice  of  territory  for  a  coaling  station  or  a  base  for  supplies  before 
they  withdrew  their  troops.  A  case  of  this  kind  would  have  led 
to  serious  complications,  in  which  the  United  States  would  un- 
willingly have  had  to  adopt  drastic  measures  to  conserve  the  letter 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

The  wonderful  feeling  of  confidence  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  in  the  judgment  of  Pre'sident  Taft  is  exem- 
plified by  the  fact  that  his  order  mobilizing  troops  near  the  Mexi- 
can line,  while  it  caused  feelings  of  wonderment  and  surprise,  did 
not  meet  with  adverse  criticism  from  any  source. 

Fortunately,  we  are  not  actuated  by  a  desire  for  territorial 
extension.  We  are  willing  to  live  and  let  live.  The  peace 
organizations  of  the  United  States  are  respected  all  over  the  world, 
and  the  closer  we  bind  ourselves  together  in  our  work  the  more  our 
influence  will  be  felt  for  good.  Whoever  may  be  at  the  head  of 
our  organization  proper,  he  will  bow  in  respect  to  the  great  man 
in  the  White  House  who  is  entitled  to  a  part  of  the  credit  for  any 
good  we  may  accomplish. 

There  is  one   thing  very  sure — that    the    millennium    which 


346  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

almost  everybody  expects  will  be  realized  some  day  upon  the  earth, 
can  never  be  achieved  by  humanity  until  we  first  get  what  this 
Convention  is  earnestly  and  ardently  striving  for — international 
peace!  That  is  the  only  real  and  substantial  basis  on  which  we 
can  repeat  the  angelic  song  "Peace  on  earth  and  good- will  towards 
men" — not  for  a  day,  not  for  a  season,  but  for  all  time;  and  this 
is  what  the  millennium  absolutely  means.  Let  us  hasten  the 
coming  of  that  era  of  universal  peace  by  every  means  within  our 
power. 

Chairman  Foster:  The  trouble  with  us  is  that  we  live  too 
long,  and  when  Brother  Clews  and  I  get  to  talking  we  are  apt 
to  think  of  the  times  in  the  Civil  War  when  we  had  a  pretty  pug- 
nacious disposition.  I  have  gotten  over  mine.  But  there  is 
one  thing  which  he  said  that  we  will  all  agree  upon,  that  was  his 
commendation  of  that  great  man  who  did  a  great  lot  of  fighting, 
but  had  a  wonderful  influence  upon  the  peace  of  the  world, 
Ulysses  S.  Grant.  He  made  the  ablest  and  greatest  arbitration 
treaty  that  was  ever  made,  which  resulted  in  the  Geneva  decision. 
Let  me  say  that  President  Taft  denied  that  he  had  any  patent 
on  this  treaty  that  is  likely  to  be  made  submitting  all  questions, 
without  exception  or  reservation,  that  might  arise  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  through  arbitration.  Thirty-four 
years  ago  President  Grant  in  writing  declared  himself  in  favor  of 
submitting  all  questions  of  every  character  that  could  not  be 
decided  by  diplomacy,  to  arbitration,  so  that  if  we  have  any 
patent  on  it,  we  can  go  back  that  far  to  the  inventor.  What  could 
we  have  done  without  George  Fox  for  all  these  generations?  We 
have  with  us  now  President  Sharpless  of  Haverford  College,  of 
the  Society  of  Friends.  I  take  pleasure  in  calling  on  President 
Sharpless. 

THE  EDUCATION  OF  PEACE  MEN 

ISAAC    SHARPLESS 

The  best  way  to  secure  a  result  is  not  always  to  aim  directly 
at  it.     The  astronomer  can  sometimes  see  a  faint  star  by  indirec- 


SHARPLESS  347 

tion  when  he  fails  if  he  looks  towards  it.  He  who  concludes  to 
turn  all  his  energies  to  finding  happiness  pretty  certainly  does  not 
find  it.  He  who  finds  it,  finds  it  by  forgetting  it.  The  man  who 
succeeds  in  solving  the  problems  that  are  worth  solving,  in  doing 
the  difficult  things  that  are  worth  doing  and  which  he  much  de- 
sires to  do,  gets  happiness  as  a  by-product.  Scholarship  comes 
not  necessarily  to  the  man  who  always  has  that  end  in  view.  It 
comes  through  the  mastery  of  intellectual  difficulties  of  a  certain 
kind,  in  which  the  man  becomes  so  absorbed  that  he  forgets  all 
else  until  he  wakens  up  some  morning  and  finds  that  he  has  formed 
certain  intellectual  habits  and  tastes  and  is,  almost  unknown  to 
himself,  a  scholar.  He  who  starts  life  with  a  purpose  to  make  a 
character  for  himself  may  not  succeed,  but  he  who  approaches 
the  duties  of  every  day  with  a  conscience  which  makes  him  meet 
them  fairly  and  faithfully,  who  never  shirks  a  responsibility  and 
never  quails  before  a  danger  is  making  character  all  the  time, 
though  it  may  be  farthest  from  his  thoughts. 

There  is  often  a  close  and  unknown  relation  between  acts  and 
tendencies  which  are  seemingly  far  remote  from  each  other. 

The  reports  of  the  Rhodes  Scholars  betray  a  striking  difference 
in  the  character  of  English  and  American  education,  a  difference 
not  hitherto  unknown,  but  perhaps  never  before  so  strikingly 
evident. 

In  the  new  country  there  is  an  abounding  enthusiasm,  both 
individual  and  collective.  This  brings  about  much  popular  knowl- 
edge, much  general  diffusion  of  educational  ideas  and  theories, 
much  interest  in  study,  much  ambition  for  advancement.  It  is 
stimulated  by  the  easy  conditions  of  entrance  to  many  schools  and 
colleges  which  the  popular  numerical  standard  of  success  con- 
stantly accentuates.  As  our  friend  Mr.  Dpoley,  who  so  often 
catches  the  spirit  of  American  tendencies,  tells  us,  the  admission 
to  college  is  not  a  great  bugbear.  ''The  President  takes  the  boy 
into  his  Turkish  room,  offers  him  a  cigarette  and  says,  'Now  me 
dear  boy  you  are  admitted.  What  brand  of  larnin'  do  ye  wish 
studied  for  you  by  me  competent  professors.'" 

When  we  wish  an  educational  justification  for  all  this  vigor  and 
enthusiasm  we  point  to  Froebel  and  the  kindergarten  or  to  Her- 


348  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

bart  and  his  doctrine  of  interest,  or  to  the  college  elective  system 
and  the  arguments  for  it,  all  of  which  we  misapply  or  pervert. 
We  reap  the  product,  a  generous,  agreeable,  progressive,  well- 
informed  youth,  full  of  a  solid  belief  in  America  and  himself,  full 
of  the  spirit  of  abundant  life  and  energy,  rather  careless  of  methods 
and  judging  success  by  tangible  results. 

In  England  interest  does  not  count  and  enthusiasm  is  below 
par.  The  boy  studies  his  lessons  because  he  must.  If  he  does 
not  like  them  today  he  surely  attends  to  them  tomorrow.  His 
early  work  is  kept  down  to  a  few  fundamental  things  and  these 
are  well  and  thoroughly  learned.  Slovenliness  is  the  great  sin 
and  superficiality  has  no  defence.  What  wise  men  decree  as  the 
proper  discipline  for  the  boy,  that  he  takes.  He  makes  a  face 
but  he  swallows.  ^  He  learns  to  do  unpleasant  things.  Grind 
so  contemptuously  spoken  of  in  America,  is  his  habit,  his  normal 
educational  life.  At  twenty  he  does  not  know  much  about  many 
things  but  he  can  do  what  lies  before  him.  He  has  not  touched 
a  great  variety  of  subjects,  can  not  talk  interestingly  of  all  sorts 
of  things,  seems  lacking  in  the  ardor  of  conquest  and  the  essence 
of  progress,  but  he  can  sit  down  to  master  a  problem  which  will 
take  hours  and  days  of  uninteresting  drudgery  and  has  a  fund 
of  thorough  knowledge  of  a  few  essential  things,  which  makes 
such  a  mastery  possible. 

Is  it  a  far  cry  from  these  educational  conditions  to  certain  other 
conditions  which  are  the  result  of  adult  tendencies  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  national  life?  We  need  only  mention  one.  Our 
municipal  government  in  America  is  often  extravagant,  inefficient, 
corrupt.  In  England  it  is  economical,  largely  efficient,  honest, 
and  the  best  men  work  night  and  day  to  keep  it  so.  Our  negli- 
gent habits  would  not  be  tolerated  at  all  in  many  cities.  Their 
management  is  thoroughly  and  carefully  attended  to — ours  is  by 
slap-dash  methods,  and  crude  and  careless  machinery.  The 
expenses  of  two  cities  of  equal  population  in  the  two  countries  may 
be  in  the  proportion  of  4  to  i  and  yet  it  would  not  be  safe  to  say 
that  the  quadruple  expenditure  brought  more  to  our  tax  payers. 

And  our  people  do  not  seem  to  care.  They  are  too  little  inter- 
ested or  too  selfish  to  make  the  necessary  exertion  to  rescue  the 


SHARPLESS 


349 


government  from  evil  or  weak  hands.  They  will  hardly  vote, 
and  our  most  competent  men  will  not  take  upon  themselves  the 
burdens  and  unpleasantnesses  of  active  political  or  official  life. 
We  believe  with  a  perennial  optimism  that  some  day  when  we 
have  more  time  we  will  fix  this  thing  right,  and  the  history  of  the 
past  will  probably  justify  the  belief.  If  we  can  keep  out  of  wars 
with  the  extravagance  and  demoralization  which  they  entail  we 
will  probably  learn  our  lesson  and  reform. 

But  suppose  that  we  could  rear  a  generation  of  youths  who  were 
taught  above  all  things  the  sacredness  of  doing  things  well,  who 
had  not  held  up  before  them  continually  the  mercenary  ideal  that 
education  pays  in  cash,  whose  athletic  morality  was  not  based 
upon  the  notion  that  to  win  the  game  was  the  only  thing  to  strive 
for,  and  that  methods  did  not  matter,  who  had  developed  a  con- 
science which  would  never  allow  a  slovenly  incompetent  thing 
to  be  done  without  a  protest,  and  who  would  spend  days  and 
nights  in  laboring  to  prevent  it;  would  not  such  a  generation  when 
manhood  came  to  them  instinctively  refuse  to  allow  government 
to  go  awry?  Could  they  see  with  any  degree  of  tolerance  the 
incapacity,  the  carelessness,  the  unrighteousness  of  our  present 
management,  and  allow  it  to  go  unrebuked?  Would  not,  in  the 
face  of  such  a  public  opinion,  the  evils  fall  of  themselves? 

There  may  be  a  closer  connection  between  the  way  we  require 
our  children  to  study  their  lessons  in  spelling  and  arithmetic  and 
elementary  language,  and  the  resulting  character  in  our  men  and 
women  than  we  think  of;  and  it  might  be  better  to  get  habits  of 
honest  work  through  these  things,  than  to  have  many  lectures 
on  civic  duty  and  personal  morality  over  which  we  may  become 
enthusiastic,  which  our  boys  hear  with  interest  and  straightway 
forget,  because  they  are  not  drilled  into  them  by  the  steady  force 
of  patient  self  denying  discipline. 

The  application  of  this  to  our  present  question  is  obvious. 
Lectures  on  the  iniquity  and  inexpediency  of  war  in  school  and 
college  may  be  useful  and  somewhat  efifective.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  abate  efforts  in  this  direction  for  there  is  a  place  even  for  super- 
ficial interest  and  influence  in  the  great  movement.  They  reach 
a  class  of  minds,  and  create  opinion  and  votes,  among  people 


35©  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

whose  Judgment  is  rather  immature,  but  whose  intentions  are 
meant  to  be  well  directed.  They  create  something  of  a  contagious 
atmosphere  in  which  reforms  thrive. 

But  there  may  be  a  more  sure  word  to  be  said,  a  condition 
created  in  which  peace  will  become  inevitable  and  wars  impos- 
sible. 

The  indirect  method  is  the  way  to  promote  this.  It  will  come 
gradually,  and  its  effects  may  be  invisible  for  a  long  time,  but  the 
final  outcome  is  certain  and  permanent. 

Do  we  wish  to  show  the  nation  that  war,  with  its  preparation 
and  consequences,  is  an  economic  waste?  We  will  appeal  in  vain 
to  a  people  that  care  nothing  about  economy,  that  are  accustomed 
to  strew  their  resources  around  with  a  liberal  hand,  with  a  con- 
fidence that  they  will  be  indefinitely  renewed,  that  see  the  forests 
and  mines,  the  water  power,  and  public  lands  given  easily  away 
or  destroyed  or  sold  for  a  song.  The  children  that  grow  up  in  this 
atmosphere  will  waste  their  toys,  waste  their  time,  waste  their 
pencils  and  their  books,  waste  their  chewing  gum  and  their  cigar- 
ettes. Waste  will  be  a  virtue  rather  than  a  fault  as  indicating  the 
free  generous  American  spirit.  The  schools  must  enforce  ideas 
of  economy  and  thrift,  set  themselves  strongly  against  squander- 
ing even  to  the  extent  if  necessary  of  positive  prohibition,  even 
when  extending  to  very  little  inexpensive  things. 

Do  we  want  to  curb  the  spirit  of  pseudo-patriotism,  a  frequent 
cause  of  trouble;  the  patriotism  which  always  boasts  of  our  coun- 
try right  or  wrong  and  advocates  her  unlimited  uncritical  support 
in  every  emergency?  There  is  a  lot  of  this  spirit  in  the  schools, 
sentiment  for  our  crowd,  our  side  of  a  game,  our  school,  our  col- 
lege, a  noble  sentiment  in  proper  limits.  Anything  to  win  is  our 
battle  cry.  To  pack  our  team  is  a  merit  if  we  do  not  get 
detected,  to  disable  an  opponent  when  the  official  can  not  see,  is 
a  very  venial  fault  lapsing  into  a  virtue.  And  the  men  and  women 
on  the  side  lines  whose  business  is  not  to  enjoy  fair  play  but  to 
shout  for  our  team,  applaud  these  things,  call  them  shrewd  and 
commendable  methods  of  winning  a  victory,  worthy  of  all  admira- 
tion, and  if  victory  comes  by  these  devices,  they  light  bonfires 
and  carry  the  captain  on  their  shoulders  and  perhaps  secure  an 


SHARPLESS  351 

enthusiastic  speech  of  congratulation  from  the  college  president 
or  the  school  principal.  A  generation  reared  in  this  spirit  is  the 
same  that  a  few  decades  later  will  cheer  a  smart  but  indefensible 
political  trick,  will  cry  for  a  war  in  an  impulse  of  excitement  and 
howl  down  a  moderate  man  who  questions  its  propriety. 

Do  we  wish  to  curb  the  demand  for  an  unreasonable  increase 
of  our  territory,  the  demand  which  in  an  American  Fourth  of 
July  dinner  in  Paris  was  voiced  by  the  toast,  "To  the  U.  S. 
To  be  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Aurora  Borealis,  on  the  south 
by  the  Precession  of  the  Equinoxes,  on  the  east  by  the  Primeval 
Chaos,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Day  of  Judgment?"  A  demand 
which  many  times  in  many  nations  has  brought  on  wars.  If  so 
we  must  somewhat  revise  our  standards  of  greatness.  We  must 
have  something  better  to  be  proud  of  than  square  miles  of  terri- 
tory, and  linear  miles  of  railway,  and  tons  of  pig  iron  and  bushels 
of  wheat,  indispensable  as  these  things  are.  We  must  strive 
to  be  able  to  feel  complacent  over  the  quality  of  our  government, 
of  our  schools,  of  our  care  of  dependents  and  defectives,  of  our 
criminal  administration,  of  our  intellectual  and  moral  habits  of  life. 

But  when  we  hold  up  these  material  standards  alone  to  our  child- 
ren, when  we  are  forever  telling  them  that  education  pays,  and 
will  fit  them  for  business  rather  than  for  service,  when  the  spirit 
of  the  technical  school,  which  is  honestly  a  preparation  for  money 
making,  pervades  the  academic  school  and  college  and  the  value 
of  all  education  is  reckoned  by  its  cash  proceeds,  we  are  surely 
not  rearing  a  race  of  men  who  will  prefer  quality  to  magnitude, 
and  duty  to  success.  To  enlarge  our  domain  will  be,  at  least  be- 
neath the  surface  a  sufficient  justification  for  aggression,  even 
though  aggression  may  lead  to  war. 

Do  we  want  to  impress  on  the  world  the  efficiency  and  sensible- 
ness  of  arbitration  and  have  a  popular  backing  when  treaties  come 
to  be  ratified,  and  courts  established?  The  George  Junior  Repub- 
lic boys  when  they  grow  to  be  men  would  inevitably  stand  for  it. 
They  could  not  help  it.  But  what  about  the  boys  in  schools 
with  no  efficient  self-government,  whose  teachers'  laws  are  the 
every  day  authority  and  whose  differences  are  adjusted  by  arbi- 
trary power?     Is  there  not  a  seed  of  distrust  sown  for  the  free 


352  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

play  of  arbitral  courts  and  a  habit  of  depending  on  power  and 
position  and  "arms  and  the  man"  for  the  emergency?  Does  it 
not  encourage  the  reliance  on  the  imperious  dictator,  the  show  of 
arms  at  least  to  carry  a  point,  and  bully  a  weak  power,  rather 
than  a  gracious  surrender  when  in  the  wrong,  and  a  willing  adher- 
ence to  a  decision  against  us? 

Do  we  want  to  apply  the  highest  moral  standards  to  the  ques- 
tion of  war,  to  appeal  to  the  best  sentiments  of  our  religion,  which 
would  impel  us  to  suffer  much  rather  than  do  a  wrong  thing,  to 
extend  the  bonds  of  fraternity  and  the  obligation  of  service  to 
all  mankind?  The  nation  will  hardly  get  this  except  through  its 
youth.  They  must  learn  that  a  moral  ideal  must  be  sustained 
even  at  a  sacrifice,  that  the  conquest  of  an  enemy  is  best  made  by 
considerate  treatment,  that  the  boy  who  wants  a  fight  can  usually 
find  one,  but  that  it  is  an  unnecessary  luxury  for  the  average 
youth.  They  must  be  taught  to  have  faith  in  a  moral  law  of 
some  sort  rather  than  in  the  haphazard  easily  evident  sugges- 
tions of  the  moment,  they  must  believe  that  in  the  long  run  the 
right  is  the  expedient,  and  that  among  themselves,  love  and  kind- 
ness and  courtesy,  and  honest  dealing  in  examinations,  in  the  dis- 
ciplinary questions  that  come  up  daily,  in  the  games  and  common 
intercourse  with  their  fellows,  are  the  real  solvents  of  troubles, 
the  real  secret  of  successful  dealing.  For  it  is  only  a  moral 
basis  that  in  the  last  extremity  will  keep  a  nation  true  to  the  cause 
of  peace,  and  withstand  the  excited  clamor  for  a  fight. 

The  schools  and  the  national  characteristics  react  upon  each 
other,  but  the  strongest  influence  is  from  the  schools  to  the  nation, 
rather  than  from  the  nation  to  the  schools.  The  teacher  in  a  larger 
sense  than  we  have  often  understood  makes  the  next  generation. 
The  indirect  effects  of  honest  teaching,  thorough  learning,  fair 
playing,  and  intelligent  obedience  to  rule,  show  themselves  in  good 
government,  in  the  growth  of  proper  sentiments,  in  the  advance 
of  all  reasonable  moral  movements.  The  boy  who  honestly  works 
out  a  problem  in  arithmetic,  may  be  in  a  better  plight  to  handle 
a  grave  question  of  right  or  utility,  than  the  boy  who  is  soaked 
with  moral  precepts,  or  with  a  sober  face  listens  to  pious  reflec- 
tions on  human  duty.     It  is  the  habit  of  mind  which  will  not 


SHARPLESS  353 

endure  faulty  conditions,  which  instinctively  demands  thorough- 
ness everywhere,  which  stands  for  a  right  because  it  is  a  matter 
of  conscience,  a  habit  of  mind  and  character  inwrought  by  years 
of  youthful  discipline,  which  is  going  to  reform  America.  The 
remedy  for  our  ills  in  a  more  complex  manner  than  we  have  usu- 
ally conceived,  lies  within  and  around  the  doors  of  our  school 
houses,  and  in  the  homes  of  that  remnant  of  the  American  people 
who  still  really  educate  their  children. 

Chairman  Foster:  We  have  seen  in  these  last  few  days  the 
many  evidences  of  the  growth  of  peace  in  this  country.  One  of 
the  most  notable  of  these  evidences  was  shown  by  the  action  of 
the  American  Peace  Society,  the  oldest  Peace  Society  in  America, 
which  has  a  great  history  behind  it  and,  I  am  quite  sure,  has  a 
great  history  before  it.  It  has  heretofore  had  its  headquarters 
in  an  ancient  and  somewhat  dilapidated  town  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  country,  which  after  all  its  pretentions  must  be  a 
provincial  sort  of  town.  They  have  recently  transferred  their 
headquarters  to  the  capital  of  the  nation  at  Washington. 

Now,  I  have  two  motives  in  making  this  announcement,  one  is 
that  I  am  expected  outside  of  this  hall  in  five  minutes  by  a  person 
whose  call  I  have  always  learned  to  obey  to  keep  peace,  if  not  in 
the  nation,  in  the  family.  Another  reason  which  I  have  for  va- 
cating the  chair  is  that  I  want  to  show  you  the  man  who  is  going 
to  Washington  for  the  American  Peace  Society.  He  is  going  to 
take  my  place  this  afternoon  and  preside  at  this  meeting.  The 
ladies  will  say  he  is  a  handsome  man,  but  we  who  know  him  know 
that  he  is  just  the  man  fitted  for  the  work  which  lies  before  him. 
Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin  Trueblood  will  now  take  my  place  as 
chairman. 

Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  this 
quite  takes  away  my  breath.  I  feel  very  much  tempted  to 
extend  the  remarks  of  the  presiding  officer  this  afternoon,  but  I 
think  I  will  resist  the  temptation. 

I  have  the  pleasure  and  honor  of  introducing  now  Dr.  S.  C. 
Mitchell,  president  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina. 


354  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

AMERICA  AS  PEACEMAKER 

S.    C.    MITCHELL 

So  far  from  writing  the  history  of  America  for  the  past  three 
hundred  years  from  the  standpoint  of  Europe,  it  is  necessary  to 
write  the  history  of  Europe  during  that  time  from  the  standpoint 
of  America.  That  this  thesis  of  Sir  John  Seeley  may  not  unduly 
elate  your  pride,  I  must  hasten  to  add  that  he  has  in  mind  the 
fact  that  most  of  the  wars  in  Europe  had  as  their  cause  the  scram- 
ble of  the  Spanish,  the  French,  and  the  English  for  lands  in  Amer- 
ica. The  significance  of  America  during  those  three  centuries 
was  as  a  war-maker,  so  the  English  historian  would  lead  us  to 
believe.  Once  as  I  dined  in  England  with  the  editor  of  a  Nor- 
wich paper,  I  asked  him  how  it  was  that  the  English  papers  had 
so  little  news  of  real  value  from  America.  One  reason,  he  re- 
plied, was  that  the  difference  of  six  hours  in  the  time  is  against 
the  English  newspapers,  our  news  arriving  too  late  for  use  that 
day,  unless  urgent.  Then  he  added,  in  an  off-hand  way:  "After 
all,  we  are  interested  only  in  the  big  disasters  in  America."  He 
thus  expressed  a  traditional  view  of  our  new  country;  but  it  is 
a  matter  of  joy  to  witness  the  change  throughout  the  world  in 
men's  estimate  of  America's  r61e.  Events  are  multiplying  every 
day  to  show  that  America  has  a  moral  mission  as  a  world-power. 

The  task  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  nationality.  Each 
nation,  moved  by  an  instinct  that  was  as  resistless  as  it  was  con- 
tagious, desired  to  set  up  housekeeping  for  itself,  to  live  under 
its  own  vine  and  fig  tree.  Prior  to  the  last  century,  it  was  the 
custom  to  build  states  according  to  dynastic  interests,  such  as  the 
widely  extended  empire  of  Charles  V,  pieced  together  by  inherit- 
ance, by  marriage,  and  by  conquest.  But  in  our  time  blood 
tends  to  become  the  sole  cement  of  a  state.  The  only  enduring 
political  bonds  prove  to  be  ties  of  kinship.  This  passionate 
yearning  for  nationality  remade  the  map  of  Europe  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  of  which  process  the  unification  of  Italy  and 
Germany  in  1870  is  typical.  Each  race  sought  to  disentangle 
itself  in  the  skein  of  peoples,  and  to  live  to  itself  in  its  own  bounds. 
Such  was  the  work  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


MITCHELL 


355 


The  task  of  the  twentieth  century  is  to  define  the  relations  of 
these  separate  nations,  and  to  enable  them  to  live  side  by  side  in 
the  spirit  of  harmony,  peace,  and  mutual  helpfulness.  While 
the  nations  have  established  their  right  to  live  alone,  they  are 
not  to  live  unto  themselves  alone.  Given  the  advantages  of 
nationality,  will  it  not  be  possible  for  the  nations  of  the  world  to 
enter  into  a  higher  union  of  friendship  and  cooperation  for  the 
largest  human  ends?  In  a  word,  as  nationality  was  the  task  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  so  internationalism  is  the  task  of  the 
twentieth  century. 

Of  this  there  are  many  infallible  proofs.  We  have  just  turned 
the  first  decade  of  the  century,  and  yet  two  Hague  Conferences 
have  been  held,  a  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  has  been  estab- 
lished, and  also  an  International  Court  of  Prize,  while  ninety- 
six  arbitration  treaties  have  already  been  made.  In  the  beau- 
tiful Peace  Palace  in  Washington  there  gather  around  the  oval 
table  twenty-one  American  republics  to  discuss  in  the  spirit  of 
amity  their  common  affairs,  thus  witnessing  to  the  Union  of  Pan- 
America,  while  there  is  rising  in  Central  America  a  Peace  Palace 
for  that  region;  and  at  The  Hague  a  still  more  imposing  one  as 
the  home  of  all  nations.  To  crown  the  achievements  of  this 
decade  in  the  interest  of  peace  comes  the  proposal  of  President 
Taft  to  strike  with  England  a  treaty  of  arbitration  covering  all 
causes.  Sir  Edward  Grey's  response  in  the  House  of  Commons  on 
March  13  last  will  doubtless  take  rank  in  history  with  Burke's 
immortal  speeches  on  American  Conciliation,  marking  as  it  does 
the  reunion  of  the  English  speaking  world  into  a  league  of  peace, 
destined  to  be  of  world  import. 

While  many  nations  have  espoused  great  causes,  there  is  one 
post  left  vacant.  It  is  that  of  peacemaker.  For  this  task  Amer- 
ica is  singled  out  by  geography  and  the  genius  of  her  people. 
"Who  knoweth  whether  thou  art  not  come  to  the  kingdom  for 
such  a  time  as  this."  No  clearer  call  ever  came  to  the  Hebrew 
to  be  the  revealer  of  religion,  or  to  the  Greek  to  be  the  exponent 
of  culture,  or  to  the  Roman  to  be  law-maker,  or  to  England  to  be 
the  mother  of  parliaments,  than  has  come  to  America  to  be  peace- 
maker for  mankind.     Edward  Everett  Hale,  having  in  mind  the 


356  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Supreme  Court  as  the  arbiter  among  the  forty-six  States  of  our 
Union,  used  to  say  that  the  United  States  is  the  greatest  peace 
society  in  the  world. 

This  understanding  of  the  unique  opportunity  of  our  country 
to  serve  a  universal  cause  is  held  by  intelligent  thinkers  in  other 
lands.  Once  as  I  worshipped  in  historic  St.  Giles  in  Edinburgh, 
the  venerable  minister  made  the  burden  of  his  prayer  a  petition 
for  our  country,  closing  with  this  significant  sentence:  "God 
grant  that  America,  as  she  is  eminent  in  position,  so  may  she  ever 
continue  to  be  in  moral  power."  America's  eminence  in  position 
and  in  moral  power  are  felt  today  as  never  before  in  the  interest 
of  world-peace.  The  fulfilment  of  that  prayer  in  a  vast  democracy 
like  ours,  where  public  opinion  has  the  force  of  law,  will  depend 
in  large  measure  upon  the  definiteness  with  which  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  citizens  of  this  country  are  brought  to  realize  the  divine 
purpose  that  is  marked  out  for  our  country  in  the  rdle  of  peace- 
maker. Dr.  Henry  S.  Pritchett  is  fond  of  saying  that  a  man's 
efficiency  in  society  depends  upon  his  purpose  multiplied  into  his 
ability  to  think  straight.  The  same  remark  applies  to  nations 
with  equal  force.  If  America,  richly  endowed  with  energy  of  will, 
springing  out  of  popular  sympathy  with  progressive  causes  and 
exhaustless  material  resources,  once  gets  a  vision  of  the  active 
part  it  can  play  in  bringing  the  blessings  of  peace  to  peoples 
weighed  down  by  burdens  of  arms  and  iron-clads,  it  will  prove 
resistless. 

The  fulness  of  the  blessings  resulting  from  such  a  course  on  our 
part  cannot  even  be  forecast  by  the  imagination  of  man.  We 
have  to  oppose  war,  with  its  carnage  and  after-horrors.  While 
we  Southern  people  have  little  love  for  General  Sherman,  we  have 
great  respect  for  his  veracity — "War  is  hell!"  He  really  died  too 
soon  to  know  the  full  meaning  of  his  definition.  Only  the  other 
day  the  Southern  Commercial  Congress  met  in  Atlanta  to  cele- 
brate the  South' s  physical  recovery.  Think  of  it!  Fifty  years 
after  Fort  Sumter,  Southern  men  gather  to  greet  one  another  in 
the  partial  recovery  of  their  land  from  the  waste  and  desolation  of 
war,  the  ultimate  burdens  of  which  will  press  heavily  upon  the 
backs  of  generations  yet  unborn.     But  wars  are  spasmodic  and 


MITCHELL  357 

may  be  expected  to  become  less  and  less  frequent.  The  present 
peril  is  armed  peace,  the  cost  of  which  is  proving  ruinous  to  modern 
countries.  This  armed  peace  is  a  novel  fact.  It  is  a  poor  com- 
pliment to  Christianity  to  record  that,  while  Rome  with  forty 
legions  preserved  profound  peace  throughout  the  wide  extent  of 
her  empire,  the  Christian  nations  of  Western  Europe  find  it  neces- 
sary to  maintain  millions  of  men  in  arms  to  secure  like  peace. 

The  vast  armaments  of  the  present  day  in  Europe  are  the  heri- 
tage of  the  great  wars  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  the  interest 
of  nationality.  Modern  nations  such  as  Italy  and  Germany, 
came  into  being  by  "blood  and  iron."  To  guard  their  individ- 
uality thus  attained,  they  now  keep  these  great  standing  armies 
and  navies.  The  purpose  now  is  to  beget  a  spirit  of  trust  and 
mutual  respect  between  these  nationalized  states,  fresh  as  are  their 
scars  from  the  struggle  for  nations'  rights. 

In  the  United  States  70  per  cent  of  our  revenue  is  spent  on 
wars  either  past  or  prospective.  President  Thwing  only  yesterday 
told  us,  for  instance,  that  the  battleship  South  Carolina  cost  a 
little  more  than  $6,000,000,  whereas  the  property  and  endowments 
of  all  the  colleges  and  universities  in  this  State  amount  to  only 
about  one-half  that  sum.  However,  owing  to  the  enormous 
resources  of  our  country,  this  burden  is  not  seriously  felt  in  com- 
parison with  the  daily  strain  upon  the  working  people  in  many 
European  states.  At  Queen  Victoria's  diamond  jubilee  I  stood 
on  the  Strand  in  London  watching  that  pageantry  of  the  British 
Empire,  as  it  swept  in  procession  down  the  street.  As  the  last 
of  the  troops  marched  by,  and  the  crowd  on  the  sidewalk  began 
to  break  up,  a  poor  woman  near  me,  with  all  the  marks  of  hardship 
in  her  face  and  dress,  shook  her  fist  at  the  retreating  soldiers,  and 
cried  aloud  vengefully:  "Yes,  and  every  one  of  you  fellows  costs 
us  a  shilling  a  day."  To  me,  entranced  as  I  had  been  by  the  splen- 
dor of  the  military  display,  that  agonizing  voice  came  like  an 
alarm  bell  in  the  night,  warning  of  the  workingman's  view  as  to 
the  weight  of  standing  armies  and  dreadnoughts. 

It  is  needless  for  me  to  recount  the  advantages  which  America 
has  for  promoting  peace  among  mankind.  Geographically  our 
situation  is  unrivalled,  with  an  ocean  as  bulwark  on  either  side. 


358  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

Enjoying  a  territory  of  vast  extent  and  varied  resources,  we  are 
without  land-hunger  and  a  lust  for  conquest.  On  this  virgin 
continent  peaceful  tasks  have  engaged  our  hands — clearing  forests, 
tunnelling  mountains,  and  building  cities. 

Coming  into  this  new  home  in  the  West,  we  treasure  the  bonds 
of  blood,  common  traditions  and  sympathy  that  bind  us  to  the 
peoples  in  the  mother  land.  The  very  aloofness  of  our  position 
quickens  in  us  a  response  to  the  progress  of  mankind  in  all  quarters 
of  the  globe,  while  our  detachment  of  view  enables  us  to  discern 
perhaps  more  clearly  the  large  facts  in  diplomacy  than  nations 
enmeshed  in  entangling  alliances  and  conflict  of  interests,  such  as 
Europe  presents.  Our  separation  from  the  old  home  breeds  sym- 
pathy with  the  noblest  aspirations  of  our  kin  across  the  sea,  and 
enforces  impartiality  in  our  understanding  of  the  difficulties  that 
beset  such  a  country  as  Germany,  which  makes  a  bayonet  its 
boundary. 

The  commingling  of  many  races  and  nations  on  our  soil  gives 
us  an  interest  in  the  well-being  of  all  the  countries  from  which  we 
hail.  The  ties  of  affection  reach  out  from  America  to  every  civil- 
ized land.  Who  can  voice  so  freely  the  deepest  instincts  of  Swe- 
den as  the  Swedes  in  America?  Who  can  speak  out  more  boldly 
the  purposes  of  Germany  than  the  Germans  in  America?  Who 
values  more  highly  the  political  debt  of  the  world  to  England  than 
the  English  in  America,  in  whose  veins  flow  the  impulses  and  ideals 
of  Simon  de  Montfort,  John  Hampden,  and  John  Bright? 

The  genius  of  democracy  is  the  sense  of  the  brotherhood  of 
mankind.  In  it  there  throbs  a  fellowship  that  is  world-wide. 
Modern  missions,  trade-unionism,  and  socialism  are  merely  indexes 
of  the  common  sympathies  that  bind  together  all  struggling  peo- 
ples in  a  democratic  age  like  ours.  Autocracy  makes  boundaries 
for  itself,  but  democracy  overleaps  bounds  and  embraces  all 
peoples  in  a  common  cause  of  liberty,  progress,  and  peace.  'Ex- 
port' is  of  the  very  spirit  of  democracy. 

America  has  uniformly  advocated  arbitration  as  a  means  of 
settling  international  disputes,  and  the  Geneva  Award  of  the 
''Alabama  Claims"  was  the  most  signal  instance  of  arbitration 
prior  to  the  permanent  court  at  The  Hague.     As  America  was  the 


MITCHELL  359 

first  to  bring  a  case  to  The  Hague,  so  she  has  been  a  party  to  the 
greatest  causes  laid  before  that  tribunal. 

By  the  absence  of  fortresses  on  the  long  Canadian  border  and 
of  armaments  on  the  Great  Lakes  since  1817,  now  nearly  a  cen- 
tury, America  has  set  an  example  of  the  feasibility  of  peace  that 
is  of  world  import. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  dedicated  the  western  hemisphere  to 
freedom  from  foreign  wars,  while  the  Pan-American  Union  has 
shown  conclusively  how  twenty-one  republics  on  these  continents 
can  come  together  in  the  Peace  Palace  at  Washington  to  transact 
international  affairs  in  the  spirit  of  mutual  helpfulness.  John 
Hay  was  fond  of  saying  that  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States  consists  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  Golden  Rule. 

The  Supreme  Court,  substituting  reason  for  force  in  the  settle- 
ment of  all  disputes  between  the  forty-six  States  of  the  Union, 
is  a  concrete  model  for  the  forty-six  nations  of  the  earth  striving 
at  The  Hague  to  erect  an  International  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice. 
As  Hugo  Grotius  was  the  father  of  international  law,  so  John 
Marshall  may  come  yet  to  stand  as  the  forerunner  of  an  inter- 
national court  of  justice. 

There  is  no  time  to  speak  of  America's  part  in  inducing  Russia 
and  Japan  to  make  peace,  nor  the  moral  effect  of  the  return  in 
part  of  the  Chinese  indemnity  by  our  government,  nor  the  efforts 
of  the  American  delegation  at  the  Second  Hague  Conference  for 
the  establishment  of  a  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice,  nor 
the  master  stroke  of  President  Taft  on  December  last,  at  the  ban- 
quet in  Washington,  suggesting  an  arbitration  treaty  with  some 
great  power  covering  all  causes,  which  event  may  come  to  rank 
as  the  greatest  fact  in  world  history  since  the  meeting  of  the  First 
Hague  Conference. 

Considering  all  of  these  things,  it  seems  that  America  is  marked 
out  by  geography,  by  the  genius  of  its  people,  by  the  spirit  of  its 
institutions,  and  by  the  dominant  purposes  in  its  history  to  act 
as  peacemaker  among  mankind. 

It  should  be  the  aim  of  the  teacher  and  preacher,  of  the  thinker 
and  the  publicist  to  intensify  in  our  people  the  consciousness  of  this 
moral  mission  committed  to  America.     The  unity  of  Italy  may 


360  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

be  dated  from  the  moment  when  Mazzini,  in  the  dungeon  of 
Savona,  conceived  his  electric  message:  "Life  is  a  mission." 
With  this  idea  he  inspired  the  heart  of  Italy's  youth,  and  as  a 
result  she  has  taken  her  place  among  the  great  nations  of  the  earth 
in  the  march  of  progress  and  peace.  May  we  have  some  share 
in  imparting  a  like  inspirational  impulse  to  the  youth  of  America 
to  strive  heroically  for  peace  founded  upon  justice  and  love  of 
mankind. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  One  of  the  most  encouraging  signs 
for  the  peace  movement  is,  I  think,  the  entrance  into  it  of  so 
many  of  the  leading  educators  of  the  country.  We  have  just 
heard  a  distinguished  educator  of  South  Carolina,  and  now  we 
are  to  listen  to  another  distinguished  educator,  formerly  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Northwestern  University  and  now  Dean  of  the  Yale 
University  Law  School.  Last  year  he  presided  over  the  New 
England  Peace  Conference.  I  take  pleasure  in  calling  upon 
Prof.  Henry  Wade  Rogers. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  PEACE  MOVEMENT 

HENRY    WADE   ROGERS 

In  1849  Victor  Hugo  predicted  that  a  day  would  come  when  a 
cannon  ball  would  be  exhibited  in  public  museums  just  as  an  in- 
strument of  torture  is  now,  and  he  added  that  people  would  be 
amazed  that  such  a  thing  as  a  cannon  ball  could  ever  have  been. 

But  Tolstoi  having  no  more  use  for  war  than  Hugo  had  no  faith 
that  the  world  would  ever  be  free  from  it  for  any  great  length  of 
time.  In  his  Kingdom  of  God  is  Within  You  he  says:  ''  The  sug- 
gestion to  governments  to  desist  from  violence,  and  to  adjust  all 
differences  by  arbitration,  would  be  to  recommend  a  suicidal 
policy,  and  no  government  would  ever  agree  to  that.  Learned 
men  found  societies  (there  are  more  than  one  hundred  of  them), 
they  assemble  in  Congresses  (like  those  held  in  London  and  Paris, 
and  the  one  which  is  to  be  held  in  Rome),  they  read  essays,  hold 
banquets,  make  speeches,  edit  journals  devoted  to  the  subject, 


ROGERS  361 

and  by  all  these  means  they  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  strain 
upon  nations  who  are  obliged  to  support  millions  of  soldiers  has 
become  so  severe  that  something  must  be  done  about  it;  that  this 
armament  is  opposed  to  the  character,  the  aim,  and  the  wishes  of 
the  populations;  but  they  seem  to  think  that  if  they  consume  a 
good  deal  of  paper,  and  devote  a  good  deal  of  eloquence  to  the 
subject,  that  they  may  succeed  in  conciliating  opposing  parties 
and  conflicting  interests,  and  at  last  effect  the  suppression  of  war." 

Peace  congresses  reminded  Tolstoi  of  a  story  told  him  when  a 
child  that  if  he  wanted  to  catch  a  bird  he  must  put  salt  on  its 
tail.  He  took  a  handful  and  went  in  pursuit  of  the  birds.  He 
soon  realized  however  that  what  he  had  been  told  was  a  joke  and 
that  it  was  as  easy  to  catch  the  birds  as  it  was  to  sprinkle  salt  on 
their  tails.  He  thought  that  those  who  read  essays  and  write 
works  on  arbitration  must  feel  much  as  he  did  when  he  realized 
the  truth  about  putting  salt  on  birds'  tails. 

This  Peace  Congress  has  been  convoked  by  men  who  have  the 
faith  of  Hugo  and  who  are  not  disheartened  by  the  discouraged 
and  despairing  Tolstoi.  We  believe,  too,  that  the  government  of 
the  United  States  is  to  have  a  great  part  in  the  ultimate  establish- 
ment of  the  principle  that  disputes  between  nations  shall  be  settled 
in  judicial  tribunals  even  as  are  those  which  arise  between  man 
and  man. 

A  distinguished  prelate  of  the  Anglican  church,  the  Bishop 
of  Hereford,  on  returning  to  England  after  a  visit  to  this  country 
emphasized  the  important  contribution  which  the  United  States 
has  made  to  the  peace  movement.  The  United  States  is,  in  his 
opinion,  the  greatest  and  most  influential  peace  society  in  the 
world.  It  illustrated,  he  said,  the  beneficent  operation  of  three 
great  principles,  those  of  interstate  trade,  an  interstate  court,  and 
federation.  He  thought  the  extension  of  these  principles  to  inter- 
national affairs  would  result  in  the  kind  of  organized  world  that 
is  needed.  We  should  then  have  "The  Parliament  of  Man,  the 
Federation   of   the   World." 

In  discussing  the  relation  of  the  United  States  to  the  peace 
movement  it  may  be  well  to  recall  that  it  is  not  a  new  idea  in  this 


362  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

country  that  some  way  should  be  found  to  abolish  war  and  estab- 
lish permanent  international  peace. 

In  a  letter  of  instruction  drafted  by  Samuel  Adams  for  the  Gen- 
eral Court  of  Massachusetts  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Massachu- 
setts delegates  in  Congress  and  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Constitution  it  was  said: 

"You  are,  therefore,  hereby  instructed  and  urged  to  move  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled  to  take  into  their  deep  and 
most  serious  consideration  whether  any  measures  can  by  them 
be  used,  through  their  influence  with  each  of  the  nations  of  Europe 
with  whom  they  are  united  by  treaties  of  amity  or  commerce,  that 
national  differences  may  be  settled  and  determined  without  the 
necessity  of  war,  in  which  the  world  has  too  long  been  deluged,  to 
the  destruction  of  human  happiness  and  the  disgrace  of  human 
reason  and  government. 

**If,  after  the  most  mature  deliberation,  it  shall  appear  that  no 
measures  can  be  taken  at  present  on  this  very  interesting  subject, 
it  is  conceived  it  would  redound  much  to  the  honor  of  the  United 
States  that  it  was  attended  to  by  their  great  Representative  in 
Congress,  and  be  accepted  as  a  testimony  of  gratitude  for  most 
signal  favors  granted  to  the  said  states  by  Him  who  is  the  al- 
mighty and  most  gracious  Father  and  Friend  of  mankind." 

From  the  beginning  of  our  government  down  to  our  own  times 
the  attitude  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished  of  American  states- 
men has  been  one  of  pronounced  hostility  to  war. 

George  Washington  said:  "My  first  wish  is  to  see  this  plague 
of  mankind  (war)  banished  from  the  earth,  and  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  this  world  employed  in  more  pleasing  and  innocent 
amusements  than  in  preparing  implements  and  exercising  them 
for  the  destruction  of  mankind." 

Benjamin  Franklin  said:  "I  hope  that  mankind  will  at  length, 
as  they  call  themselves  reasonable  creatures,  have  reason  and  sense 
enough  to  settle  their  differences  without  cutting  throats,  for  in 
my  opinion,  there  never  was  a  good  war  or  a  bad  peace. 

"All  wars  are  follies,  very  expensive  and  very  mischievous  ones. 
When  will  mankind  be  convinced  of  this,  and  agree  to  settle  their 
dififerences  by  arbitration?     Were  they  to  do  it  even  by  the  cast 


ROGERS  363 

of  a  die,  it  would  be  better  than  by  fighting  and  destroying  each 
other." 

Thomas  Jefferson  said:  "I  love  peace,  and  am  anxious  that 
we  should  give  the  world  still  another  useful  lesson,  by  showing 
them  other  modes  of  punishing  injuries  than  by  war,  which  is  as 
much  a  punishment  to  the  punisher  as  to  the  sufferer. 

"I  abhor  war  and  view  it  as  the  greatest  scourge  of  mankind." 

Charles  Sumner  said:  "War  crushes  with  bloody  heel  all  be- 
neficence, all  happiness,  all  justice,  all  that  is  godlike  in  man — 
suspending  every  commandment  of  the  Decalogue,  setting  at 
naught  every  principle  of  the  Gospel,  and  silencing  all  law,  human 
as  well  as  divine  except  only  that  impious  code  of  its  own,  the 
Laws  of  War.     .     .     . 

"There  must  be  peace  which  cannot  fail,  and  other  nations 
must  show  the  great  possession.  To  this  end  must  we  labor, 
bearing  ever  in  mind  two  special  objects,  complements  of  each 
other:  first,  the  Arbitrament  of  war  must  end;  and  secondly, 
Disarmament  must  begin." 

John  Hay  said :  "  War  is  the  most  futile  and  ferocious  of  human 
follies." 

It  is  also  well  to  recall  that  the  peace  movement  as  an  organized 
movement  originated  in  the  United  States,  the  first  peace  society 
in  the  world  having  been  organized  in  this  country.  Peace  socie- 
ties exist  today  in  every  part  of  the  world.  There  are  now  some 
six  hundred  organizations  of  this  character  which  are  seeking  to 
influence  the  public  opinion  of  their  respective  countries.  The 
first  of  these  societies,  the  New  York  Society,  was  established  in 
August,  181 5,  by  David  Low  Dodge.  Membership  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  was  a  condition  of  membership  in  that  society.  And 
the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society  was  organized  in  December  of 
the  same  year  by  two  Christian  ministers,  Worcester  and  Chan- 
ning.  In  i8i6  the  first  peace  society  in  England  was  founded.  It 
must  be  that  the  peace  societies  throughout  the  world  have  helped 
materially  in  educating  public  opinion  against  war. 

A  peace  congress  does  not  need  to  be  told  that  war  in  all  ages 
has  been  a  frightful  evil.  And  yet  I  am  disposed  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  serious  an  evil  as  war  has  always  been  the  evil  is 


364  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

much  more  serious  in  our  day  than  ever  before.  Herbert 
Spencer  saw  that  war  was  in  his  time  approaching  an  era  of  devel- 
opment when  there  could  no  longer  result  any  compensating  ad- 
vantages for  the  death,  devastation  and  misery  which  it  would 
entail  and  when  it  would  be  compelled  to  give  place  to  a  more 
humane  and  civilized  method  of  settling  the  disputes  of  states. 
The  extraordinary  development  by  modern  science  of  the  destruc- 
tive agencies  employed  in  war  has  made  war  an  infinitely  more 
heinous  crime  against  humanity  than  it  was  in  the  time  of  our 
fathers.  The  destructive  and  fearful  forces  of  modern  armaments 
have  revolutionized  in  our  own  time,  the  entire  art  of  war  and  have 
made  its  possible  horrors  so  enormous  as  should  make  war  for- 
ever impossible. 

Maxim,  the  inventor  of  some  of  the  new  and  terrible  agencies 
of  destruction,  was  told  that  his  genius  might  be  better  employed 
than  in  devising  new  weapons  of  war.  His  reply  was  that  the 
inventors  of  the  machinery  of  annihilation  were  the  most  effective 
of  the  peacemakers  of  the  world. 

The  gunpowder  our  fathers  used  has  been  supplanted.  Newer 
explosives  of  far  greater  power  have  taken  its  place.  Each  new 
explosive  is  far  more  deadly  and  more  powerful  than  its  predeces- 
sor. Rapid-fire  guns  discharge  a  thousand  bullets  a  minute. 
And  on  the  sea  great  dreadnoughts  make  antiquated  the  war  ship 
of  a  few  years  ago.  They  carry  guns  with  ranges  of  fifteen  and 
more  miles.  They  are  fitted  with  sights  that  make  it  possible 
to  train  the  guns  upon  objects  invisible  to  the  ordinary  eye.  Sub- 
marine boats  submerged  beneath  the  waters  discharge  torpedoes 
from  fourteen  to  eighteen  feet  in  length,  weighing  over  a  thousand 
pounds,  which  can  propel  themselves  for  more  than  a  mile  and 
blow  up  the  largest  war  ship  afloat.  If  war  was  hell  in  General 
Sherman's  day,  what  is  it  to  be  called  in  our  day? 

It  was  said  some  years  ago,  that  if  an  army  equipped  as  in  the 
days  of  Napoleon,  should  be  confronted  by  one  with  equal  num- 
bers but  with  modern  guns,  the  latter  would  be  able  to  destroy 
the  Napoleonic  force  before  it  could  even  be  brought  into  action. 
Their  infantry  arms  would  carry  farther  than  Napoleon's  best 
artillery.     So  we  need  to  remember  that  bad  as  war  was  in  the 


ROGERS  365 

days  of  Washington  and  Napoleon,  and  of  Sherman  and  Grant, 
the  advances  of  science  and  the  progress  of  invention  have  multi- 
plied its  horrors  a  hundred  fold,  and  quite  beyond  the  power  of 
language  to  set  forth. 

Almost  in  our  own  day,  has  come  the  steamship,  the  railroad, 
the  telegraph,  the  telephone,  and  now  the  air  ship,  facilitating 
transportation  and  transmission  of  intelligence,  breaking  down  the 
barriers  which,  in  former  times,  made  it  easy  for  nations  to  lead 
separate  lives  and  which  made  them  so  largely  independent  of 
each  other.  Nations  are,  today,  near  neighbors  the  one  of  the 
other  and  they  are  in  great  degree  dependent  upon  one  another. 
Hence  a  war  between  two  nations  is  infinitely  a  more  serious 
matter.  It  means  now  "a  rupture  of  arteries  of  common  life- 
blood,  a  stoppage  of  the  agencies  of  common  well-being  and  ad- 
vancement." 

The  United  States  should  lead  all  nations  in  the  movement 
to  abolish  war  and  establish  the  principle  that  international  dif- 
ferences shall  be  settled  by  means  of  judicial  proceedings.  This 
Republic,  the  richest  and  strongest  among  nations,  can  better 
afford  than  any  other  to  lead  the  advance  in  this  great  cause  for 
it  is  less  liable  to  have  imputed  to  it  the  motive  of  fear  or  of  selfish 
advantage.  It  would  seem  as  though  God  destined  this  nation 
to  assume  the  leadership  in  this,  the  greatest  movement  of  the 
nations.  He  planted  the  United  States  in  this  continental  strong- 
hold with  no  powerful  neighbors  to  threaten  our  borders  and  make 
it  necessary  for  us  to  maintain  great  armaments  on  land  or  sea. 
He  gave  us  natural  protection  against  attacks  by  separating  us 
from  the  source  of  possible  invasion  by  three  thousand  miles  of 
ocean  on  one  side  and  five  thousand  on  the  other.  The  United 
States  is  the  natural  leader  in  the  movement  to  secure  the  peace 
of  the  world.  The  cause  is  worthy  the  leadership  of  the  greatest 
nation.  Mr  Asquith,  the  present  British  prime  minister  says  the 
greatest  of  all  reforms  is  the  movement  for  the  abolition  of  war 
and  the  establishment  of  permanent  peace.  The  former  prime 
minister,  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman  declared  his  highest 
ambition  for  England  to  be  that  she  might  place  herself  at  the  head 
of  a  movement  to  unite  the  world  powers  in  a  league  of  peace.  We 
covet  that  leadership  for  the  United  States. 


366  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

If  we  were  to  study  the  relation  of  the  United  States  to  the  peace 
movement,  by  an  examination  of  its  budgets,  we  should  not  find 
much  to  encourage  us. 

In  1845,  Charles  Sumner  spoke  before  the  authorities  of  Boston 
on  the  "True  Grandeur  of  Nations."  He  vigorously  denounced 
what  he  regarded  as  the  wasteful  extravagance  of  the  United 
States  in  that  day,  in  its  preparations  for  war  in  time  of  peace. 
He  described  the  appropriations  made  for  that  purpose  as  "a 
measureless,  fathomless,  endless  river,  an  Amazon  of  waste,  roll- 
ing its  prodigal  waters  turbidly,  ruinously,  hatefully  to  the  sea." 
He  pronounced  the  whole  thing  evil  and  demanded  that  it  be 
remedied.  There  was  once  a  time  when  this  nation  was  the  envy 
of  the  world  as  the  one  great  power  which  had  the  priceless  privi- 
lege of  exemption  from  the  oppressive  burdens  of  warlike  prepar- 
ations under  which  other  nations  were  staggering  on  to  bank- 
ruptcy. That  distinction  and  preeminence  among  nations  we 
can  no  longer  boast. 

Figures  are  not  interesting,  but  they  are  instructive.  If  we 
would  understand  the  subject  now  under  discussion,  it  seems  neces- 
sary to  give  attention  to  "the  serried  array  of  figures"  found  in  the 
record  of  the  appropriations  of  Congress. 

The  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Appropriations  in 
the  Congress  preceding  the  one  now  in  session  stated  that  this 
government  had  expended  in  the  past  ten  years  on  account  of 
preparation  for  war  the  enormous  sum  of  $2,192,036,580.  These 
appropriations  had  been  made  to  defend  a  nation  against  which 
no  nation  had  ever  declared  war.  Every  war  this  country  has 
been  engaged  in  our  own  government  commenced.  These  appro- 
priations have  been  made  to  prepare  against  war,  when  there  is 
not  a  single  power  on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  can  wish  or  can 
afford  to  have  war  with  the  United  States.  And  if  any  European 
nation  or  any  Asiatic  nation  should  undertake  to  make  war  upon 
us  and  should  send  its  fleet  across  the  Atlantic  or  the  Pacific 
oceans,  it  would  present  to  its  rivals  the  most  tempting  oppor- 
tunity they  could  possibly  covet  for  hostile  action. 

This  country  has  made  these  vast  appropriations  because  Con- 
gress has  been  influenced  by  men  with  morbid  hallucinations  who 


ROGERS  367 

with  hysterical  cries  have  contended  that  England,  or  Germany, 
or  Japan  was  making  ready  to  insult  our  flag,  thwart  our  policies, 
destroy  what  commerce  we  have  left,  devastate  our  coasts  and 
perhaps  capture  our  possessions.  The  activity  of  these  folk  has 
been  supplemented  by  that  of  the  manufacturers  of  all  the  dia- 
bolical weapons  and  agencies  of  warfare  who  realize  perfectly  that 
increased  expenditures  in  the  preparation  for  war  enlarge  the 
profits  of  the  business  in  which  they  are  engaged. 

Large  as  these  appropriations  have  been,  these  people  are  now 
teUing  us  that  they  are  wholly  inadequate  and  that  this  country 
today  is  quite  unprepared  for  war.  If  they  are  to  be  believed  the 
army  is  almost  hopelessly  behind  the  times.  The  United  States, 
they  say,  should  either  have  an  army,  which,  for  its  size,  is  as  well 
organized  and  equipped  as  any  other  army  in  the  world,  or  else 
we  should  do  away  with  the  army  altogether.  We  lack  men  to 
man  our  defenses  and  lack  ammunition  for  the  guns  which  guard 
them.  Our  field  artillery  is  weak.  There  is  not  enough  of  it, 
and  there  is  not  enough  artillery  ammunition.  The  existing  want 
of  field  artillery,  guns,  carriages  and  ammunition  constitute  a 
grave  menace  to  the  public  safety.  Fortifications  have  been 
constructed  but  there  are  not  enough  men  to  man  them,  nor 
enough  ammunition  to  fire  the  guns  so  that  the  guns  have  no  more 
value  than  so  many  dummies.     This  is  their  indictment. 

According  to  Captain  Hobson,  not  one  city  on  our  coasts  is 
properly  fortified.  If  attacked,  little  serious  resistence  could  be 
made  and  a  force  attacking  in  the  rear  could  easily  capture  any 
one  of  them.  We  must  have  a  great  navy.  We  have  now  a  one 
ocean  navy  and  we  must  place  it  on  a  two  ocean  basis.  A  fleet 
on  the  Atlantic  is  not  adequate  for  the  defense  of  the  Pacific 
coast.  Germany  is  building  four  battleships  a  year,  while  the 
United  States  is  building  only  two.  In  eight  years  her  first  line 
of  battle  will  be  almost  twice  as  strong  as  ours.  This  is  the  picture 
which  is  held  up  before  us  today  by  these  gentlemen  at  the  end 
of  a  decade  in  which  we  have  expended  $2,192,036,580  in  making 
preparations  for  war. 

The  Revolutionary  War  cost  $370,000,000  and  $70,000,000  in 
pensions. 


368  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  War  of  1812  cost  $82,627,009  and  $45,808,676  in  pensions. 

The  Mexican  War  cost  $88,500,208  and  $43,956,768  in  pensions. 

The  Civil  War  cost  $5,371,079,748  and  $3,837,488,171  have  been 
paid  already  in  pensions. 

The  Spanish-American  War  cost  $171,326,572  and  $30,191,725 
have  been  paid  already  in  pensions. 

The  Revolutionary  War,  the  War  of  18 12,  the  Mexican  War, 
and  the  Spanish-American  War  combined,  cost  this  country,  not 
counting  pensions,  $712,453,789.  This  amounts  to  only  one- 
third  of  what  this  country  has  expended  in  the  past  ten  years  in 
its  preparations  for  war  in  a  time  of  peace. 

The  debt  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  1909 
amounted  to  $1,023,362,531.  The  sum  which  the  government 
has  spent  in  its  preparations  for  war  within  the  past  decade  would 
have  paid  this  debt  twice  over. 

The  aggregate  debt  of  all  our  states,  territories,  counties,  cities, 
towns  and  minor  public  corporations,  according  to  the  last  com- 
pilation of  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  was  $1,864,195,826,  and  the 
money  expended  by  Congress  in  the  past  ten  years  in  its  prepara- 
tions for  war  would  have  paid  this  debt  and  left  a  surplus  of  $328,- 
840,754. 

The  total  appropriation  made  by  Congress  in  1910  for  the  army, 
navy,  fortifications  and  military  academy  amounted  to  $248,832,- 
714. 

In  1897  the  appropriation  amounted  to  but  $61,688,477.  The 
appropriation  for  19 10  therefore  exceeded  that  for  1897  by  more 
than  400  per  cent. 

The  total  value  of  the  productive  funds  of  all  the  universities, 
colleges  and  technological  schools  in  the  United  States  in  1909 
amounted  to  only  $260,736,256.  And  the  total  income  of  all 
these  institutions,  counting  tuition  fees,  income  from  invested 
funds,  and  appropriations  from  the  public  treasury  amounted  to 
only  $65,792,045.  The  higher  institutions  of  learning  in  America 
are  spending  about  one-fourth  as  much  money  each  year  in  train- 
ing men  to  be  useful  citizens  and  in  fitting  them  to  become  lead- 
ers of  public  opinion  as  the  government  of  the  United  States  is 
expending  in  preparing  for  war. 


ROGERS  369 

In  1910,  Congress  expended  on  our  navy  $123,114,547.  The 
highest  annual  expenditure  for  the  navy  in  the  Civil  War  was 
$123,000,000.  The  total  amount  of  benefactions  in  this  country 
in  1910  is  stated  as  having  amounted  to  about  $125,000,000.  So 
that  the  amount  given  to  schools,  colleges,  asylums,  hospitals 
and  to  all  the  other  charitable  undertakings  was  much  the  same 
in  1 9 10  as  what  the  government  expended  on  the  navy  alone  in 
the  same  year. 

In  1850  we  expended  on  the  navy $    7,904,723 

In  1880  we  expended  on  the  navy $  13,536,985 

In  1900  we  expended  on  the  navy $  55,953,078 

In  1910  we  expended  on  the  navy $123,114,547 

At  present  our  national  expenditures  are  72  per  cent  for  past 
wars  and  in  preparation  for  future  wars,  and  28  per  cent  for  all 
other  governmental  purposes.  The  United  States  is  today 
expending  more  money  for  military  and  naval  purposes  and  pen- 
sions, excluding  interest  on  the  war  debt,  than  any  other  nation. 
The  British  foreign  secretary  in  speaking  of  the  increased  expendi- 
tures which  all  the  nations  have  engaged  in  during  the  past  ten 
years  says  that  they  constitute  a  satire  upon  civilization. 

But  we  are  told  by  Rear  Admiral  Mahan  who  believes  in  a  big 
navy  that  national  wealth  is  increasing  faster  than  our  appro- 
priations so  that  in  reality  we  are  spending  less  upon  the  navy  than 
we  did  in  former  years.  And  another  writer  considering  our  navy 
as  an  insurance  against  foreign  aggression  has  recently  pointed 
out  that  this  country  is  spending  on  the  navy  only  one-tenth  of  i 
per  cent  of  our  total  wealth  or  3I  per  cent  on  the  value  of  our 
foreign  commerce.  And  taking,  as  he  says  he  does,  a  purely 
business  view  of  the  situation  he  declares  he  cannot  see  anything 
so  very  ruinous  about  it.  He  must  know  that  the  3^  per  cent  of 
which  he  speaks  is  about  six  times  the  average  rate  for  fire  insur- 
ance. He  must  also  know  that  if  the  navy  is  to  be  regarded  as 
so  much  insurance  the  army  is  so  much  additional  insurance  and 
increases  the  insurance  rate  to  about  7  per  cent  or  twelve  times  the 
average  rate  of  fire  insurance—  and  he  ought  also  to  know  that 
there  are  other  modes  of  insuring  national  prosperity  than  by 


37©  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

armies  and  navies.  Let  these  unnecessary  and  wasteful  expendi- 
tures on  the  army  and  navy  end,  and  let  the  money  be  expended 
in  a  more  useful  manner. 

Statesmen,  in  imposing  these  tremendous  burdens  of  taxation 
for  war  purposes,  are  not  employing  the  public  money  to  the  best 
advantage.  The  demand  is  each  year  becoming  more  urgent 
at  home  and  abroad  for  larger  and  larger  output  for  social  better- 
ment. Instead  of  spending  with  lavish  hand  in  constructing 
war  ships  that  in  a  few  years  must  be  thrown  to  the  scrap  heap,  it 
would  be  wisdom  to  spend  it  in  improving  the  health,  the  physique, 
and  the  intelligence  of  the  nation.  Let  the  burden  of  national 
taxation  through  Tariff  duties  and  excise  taxes,  be  lessened,  and 
war  expenditures  decreased,  so  that  the  States  may,  without  im- 
posing too  heavy  charges  upon  the  taxpayer,  better  the  condi- 
tions under  which  men  and  women  live  and  work. 

Why  should  these  ever  increasing  burdens  for  military  and 
naval  defense  be  imposed  on  the  United  States?  And  why  should 
they  be  imposed  at  a  time  when  all  the  chief  factors  in  the  prob- 
lem of  peace  are  favorable  for  the  United  States?  We  never  be- 
fore have  been  as  free  of  difficulties  with  England  as  now.  This 
is  the  day  of  The  Hague  Tribunal  and  when  all  the  nations  are 
agreeing  on  an  Arbitral  Court.  It  would  seem  as  though  the 
need  of  great  spending  for  war  preparations  had  lessened  and  not 
increased.  Were  our  forefathers  lacking  in  sagacity  and  in  polit- 
ical foresight  when  they  thought  a  small  army  was  sufficient  and 
that  it  was  needed  only  for  purposes  of  police,  that  a  great  navy 
was  a  useless  expense  and  that  a  small  one  would  answer,  pro- 
vided it  was  large  enough  to  rid  the  sea  of  pirates,  protect  our 
merchant  marine  and  suppress  the  slave  trade?  Sixty-five  years 
ago  Charles  Sumner  spoke  of  the  navy  of  the  United  States  as 
"an  unnecessary  arm  of  national  defense"  and  declared  it  was 
"a  vain  and  expensive  toy." 

There  is  another  matter  in  which  the  action  of  the  United 
States  has  been  distinctly  disappointing  to  some  of  the  friends  of 
the  peace  movement.  The  action  of  Congress  in  appropriating 
money  for  the  fortification  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  one  of  the  sad 
results  of  the  emotional  insanity  which  has  afflicted  the  people 


ROGERS  . 3yi 

of  the  United  States  ever  since  the  war  with  Spain.     The  victory   / 
of  Dewey  in  Manila  Bay  seemed  to  change  the  attitude  of  not  a 
few  of  the  American  people.     It  caused  them  to  discard  the  polit- 
ical philosophy  of  the  fathers  and  consent  to  assume  the  burden 
of  great  military  armaments.     This  they  have  been  induced  toi 
do  on  the  pretext  that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  safeguard  the' 
country  against  a  will-o'-the-wisp  of  a  non-existent  foreign  enemy, 
The  blood  poison  of  militarism  has  in  some  way  gotten  into  th^~^ 
veins  of  our  people.  V/ 

I  cannot  think  of  this  changed  condition  of  the  American  mind 
without  recalling  Lowell's  words  in  Rosea  Bigelow: 

We  were  gettin'  on  nicely  up  here  to  our  village, 

With  good  idees  o'  wut's  right  and  wut  ain't, 
We  kind  o'  thought  Christ  went  agin  war  and  pillage, 
An'  thet  eppyletts  worn't  the  best  mark  of  a  saint; 
But  John  P. 
Robinson  he 
Sez  this  kind  o'  thing's  an  exploded  idee. 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  a  sincere  friend  of  peace, 
and  one  commanding  the  respect  and  confidence  of  his  country- 
men in  an  unusual  degree,  thinks  this  government  ought  to  for- 
tify the  canal  and  that  those  who  differ  with  him  are  influenced 
by  sentiment  and  idealism.  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  his  speech  at 
Omaha  in  October,  1910,  declared  this  country  was  inhonor bound 
to  fortify  it.  He  said  not  to  do  so  would  be  to  incur  the  contempt 
of  the  world.  That  it  would  involve  the  surrender  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  That  it  would  be  in  its  essence  treason  to  the  destiny 
of  the  Republic.  But  his  predecessor,  Mr.  McKinley,  while 
President,  sent  to  the  Senate  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1900, 
which  he  had  negotiated  with  England,  and  which  contained  a 
clause  which  expressly  declared  "No  fortifications  shall  be  erec- 
ted commanding  the  canal  or  the  waters  adjacent."  A  motion 
was  made  in  the  Senate  to  strike  out  that  clause.  It  was  voted 
down  by  a  vote  of  26  to  44.  If  Mr.  Roosevelt's  statement  is  to 
be  accepted,  Mr.  McKinley  and  the  Senate  must  have  been  very 
obtuse  not  to  have  discovered  that  what  they  were  approving 


372  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

was  "in  its  essence  treason  to  the  destiny  of  the  Republic."  The 
treaty  of  1900  was  ratified  by  the  United  States  but  with  an  amend- 
ment and  as  Great  Britain  refused  to  accept  it  in  its  amended 
form  that  particular  treaty  failed.  Mr.  Roosevelt's  assertion  that 
non-fortification  of  the  Canal  involves  the  surrender  of  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  is  hard  to  accept.  The  United  States  must,  if  he 
is  correct,  have  abandoned  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  long  ago  as 
1850  when  it  agreed  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  that  it  would 
not  fortify  the  canal.  That  treaty  continued  in  force  for  more 
than  fifty  years  and  until  it  was  superseded  by  the  second  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  of  1902.  It  was  in  force  in  1895,  when  Mr. 
Cleveland  sent  to  Congress  his  celebrated  message  in  which  he 
stated  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  not  obsolete  and  could  not 
be  while  our  Republic  endured.  To  neutralize  the  canal  by  an 
international  agreement  does  not  involve  a  surrender  to  European 
powers  of  any  controlling  interest  in  the  western  hemisphere.  It 
is  not  proposed  that  any  European  nation  shall  control  either 
canal  zone  or  the  canal  itself,  but  only  that  the  powers  shall  agree 
that  the  canal  shall  be  immune  from  attack. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  and  the  action  of  the  President  and 
Senate  concerning  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1900  make  it 
incontrovertible  that  this  government  conceded  the  principle 
as  late  as  1900  that  the  canal  should  not  be  fortified. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  under  the  second  and  existing  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  of  1902,  the  United  States  has  the  right  to 
fortify.  From  that  treaty  there  was  omitted  any  clause  pro- 
hibiting in  express  terms  the  canal's  fortification.  The  argument 
is  that  because  of  that  omission  the  right  exists.  If  the  omission 
proves  the  existence  of  the  right,  then  by  the  same  process  of 
reasoning  the  United  States  has  lost  the  right  to  police  the  canal. 
For  the  second  treaty  not  only  omitted  the  clause  prohibiting 
fortification  but  it  omitted  also  the  clause  authorizing  the  United 
States  to  protect  the  canal  against  lawlessness,  both  of  which 
provisions  had  been  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1900. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  no  treaty  now  in  force  in  express  terms 
denies  to  this  government  the  right  to  fortify  the  canal.  It  must, 
however,  be  admitted  that  the  existing  treaties  bind  this  country 


ROGERS  373 

in  express  terms  to  neutralize  it.  That  makes  it  necessary  to 
determine  whether  we  can  neutralize  and  fortify  at  the  same  time, 
or  whether  neutralization  and  fortification  are  not  absolutely 
antagonistic  in  principle. 

The  treaty  of  Vienna  which  provided  for  the  neutralization  of 
Cracow  stipulated  that  no  armed  forces  should  be  introduced  there 
on  any  pretense.  When  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  was  guaran- 
teed it  was  deemed  necessary  to  demolish  Belgian  fortresses. 
When  the  Ionian  Islands  were  neutralized,  it  was  stipulated  that 
"as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  neutrality"  the  fortifications 
"being  purposeless"  should  be  demolished.  In  the  neutraliza- 
tion of  Luxemburg,  it  was  provided  that  it  should  cease  to  be  for- 
tified as  fortifications  were  without  necessity  as  well  as  without 
object.  A  part  of  Savoy  was  neutralized  in  1815  and  when  France 
in  1883  began  to  fortify  it  Switzerland  protested  and  France  at 
once  discontinued  its  fortification.  The  treaty  of  Paris  neutral- 
ized the  Black  Sea  and  prohibited  the  Emperor  of  Russia  and  the 
Sultan  of  Turkey  from  maintaining  any  military-maritime  arse- 
nals along  the  coast  the  same  being  unnecessary  and  purposeless. 
And  in  the  neutralization  of  the  Lower  Danube  it  was  provided 
that  all  fortresses  and  fortifications  on  the  banks  from  the  Iron 
Gates  to  the  mouth  should  be  razed  and  no  new  ones  erected. 

There  are  writers  on  international  law  who  say  that  neutrali- 
zation "implies  the  absence  of  fortifications."  Latane  says 
"The  mere  existence  of  fortifications  would  impeach  the  good  faith 
of  the  parties  to  the  agreement."  Professor  John  Bassett  Moore 
of  Columbia,  one  of  the  foremost  authorities  in  this  country, 
writes:  "The  idea  of  neutrality  or  of  neutralization  has  usually 
been  deemed  incompatible  even  with  the  mere  maintenance  of 
armed  forces  and  fortifications."  But  it  is  not  simply  a  question 
of  whether  we  have  or  not  a  legal  right  to  fortify.  The  claim 
the  friends  of  non-fortification  make  is  that  the  United  States 
should  negotiate  a  convention  with  the  Great  Powers  of  the  world 
similar  to  the  Constantinople  Convention  of  1888,  which  guaran- 
tees that  the  Suez  Canal  shall  be  immune  from  attack  in  time  of 
war,  and  that  it  shall  not  be  permanently  fortified.  To  this  it 
is  answered  that  the  United  States  cannot  trust  the  honor  of  the 


374  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

nations.  They  tell  us  that  treaties  are  broken.  The  answer  is 
that  individual  treaties  have  sometimes  been  broken  but  that  a 
convention  signed  by  great  nations  would  be  kept.  One  con- 
vention neutralizing  the  Suez  Canal  has  never  been  broken. 
The  neutralization  of  Switzerland  and  of  Belgium  and  of  Luxem- 
burg has  been  kept.  If  the  United  States  is  to  fortify  the  canal, 
it  must  defend  it  against  all  nations.  It  is  safer  unfortified. 
Under  The  Hague  Convention  of  1907  it  is  contrary  to  the  rules 
of  war  to  bombard  unfortified  coasts. 

The  Panama  Canal  as  a  military  asset  is  of  questionable  value. 
Rear  Admiral  Evans  is  quoted  as  saying  that  it  cannot  be  so  for- 
tified as  to  protect  a  fleet  passing  through  the  canal.  A  hostile 
fleet  at  the  exits  would  capture  or  destroy  the  war  ships  as  they 
come  out  one  by  one  and  before  they  could  form  in  line  of  battle. 
Rear  Admiral  Dewey  is  also  reported  as  opposed  to  any  policy  of 
fortification.  Fortification  is  unnecessary  and  worse  than  useless. 
Fortifications  invite  attack.  "They  draw  the  lightning  of  battle," 
and  are  not  less  a  safeguard  than  a  danger. 

We  are  told  that  there  was  at  least  one  spot  in  Greece,  the  small 
island  of  Delos,  which  was  dedicated  to  the  gods,  and  kept  at  all 
times  sacred  from  war.  It  is  said  that  no  hostile  foot  ever  pressed 
its  kindly  soil.  Would  that  the  United  States,  adhering  to  its 
original  policy,  had  dedicated  the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  ten  miles 
wide  and  fifty  miles  long,  as  a  spot  to  be  held  henceforth  sacred 
from  all  the  operations  of  war.  Through  this  artery  of  commerce 
uniting  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  the  ships  of  the 
world  should  pass  and  repass  in  perfect  safety.  The  Panama 
Canal,  like  the  Suez,  should  have  remained  unfortified  and  been 
made  immune  from  attack  by  agreement  of  the  nations. 

The  United  States  throughout  its  history  as  an  independent 
nation  has  thrown  the  weight  of  its  influence  many  times  in  favor 
of  the  substitution  of  reason  for  force  in  the  adjustment  of  inter- 
national disputes  found  to  be  impossible  of  settlement  by  di- 
plomacy. In  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  negotiated  in  1794  and  known  as  Jay's  treaty,  provision 
was  made  for  the  adjustment  by  arbitration  of  certain  disputes 
between  the  two  countries.     The  provision  was  inserted  through 


ROGERS  375 

the  influence  of  the  American  negotiator.  It  was  the  first  time 
that  a  provision  of  this  kind  was  introduced  into  a  treaty  between 
two  foreign  nations.  The  Greeks  often  resorted  to  arbitration 
but  they  only  practiced  it  among  themselves  and  never  with  for- 
eign nations.  Rome  never  arbitrated  her  disputes  with  other 
states.  It  would  have  been  regarded  as  an  abasement  to  have 
done  so. 

The  United  States  and  Great  Britain  set  a  notable  example 
when  they  agreed  not  to  arm  on  the  Great  Lakes.  The  first  sug- 
gestion of  making  the  region  of  the  Great  Lakes  neutral,  origi- 
nated during  the  administration  of  Washington,  and  with  the 
President  himself.  When  Washington  sent  Jay,  in  1794,  to  nego- 
tiate a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  he  gave  him  this  among  the 
other  instructions:  "In  peace,  no  troops  to  be  kept  within  a 
limited  distance  from  the  lakes."  Jay  did  not  succeed  j.n  embody- 
ing this  principle  in  the  treaty.  The  agreement  for  disarmament 
was  to  come  twenty-three  years  afterwards.  The  close  of  the 
War  of  181 2,  left  on  the  waters  of  the  lakes  a  considerable  naval 
force  of  both  nations.  It  was  found  desirable  that  it  should  be 
much  reduced  or  entirely  dispensed  with.  Gallatin  had  proposed 
disarmament  in  18 14.  But  each  of  the  combatants  in  the  war 
which  had  closed  was  suspicious  of  the  other  and  the  proposition 
was  kept  pending.  A  final  agreement  was  not  reached  until 
April  28,  181 7.  It  was  then  agreed  that  the  two  governments 
would  maintain  not  more  than  one  vessel  on  Lake  Champlain, 
one  on  Ontario,  and  two  on  the  upper  lakes,  of  not  more  than  one 
hundred  tons  each,  to  be  armed  with  one  eighteen-pound  cannon. 
It  was  also  stipulated  that  no  other  vessel  of  war  should  be  built 
or  armed  on  these  lakes.  This  has  been  construed  as  a  prohibi- 
tion against  any  vessels  being  built  for  the  American  navy  in  the 
large  shipyards  on  the  lakes  to  be  taken  through  the  canals  to  the 
sea.  Although  this  has  provoked  criticism  and  some  remon- 
strance, it  has  been  adhered  to.  In  181 2,  the  United  States  had 
forty-six  forts  along  its  Canadian  frontier  and  Canada  had  about 
the  same  number.  But  after  this  arrangement  was  made,  the 
forts  were  destroyed  and  the  ships  withdrawn.  The  peace  has 
been   maintained   between   the   two   countries   and   neither   has 


376  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

encroached  upon  the  other's  frontier.  Disarmament  on  the  Great 
Lakes  affords  an  object  lesson  to  all  the  nations.  This  experience 
of  almost  a  hundred  years  shows  that  it  is  safe  to  trust  to  national 
honor. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  many  of  our  ablest  public  men,  includ- 
ing Franklin,  John  Adams,  Seward  and  Sumner,  believed  that 
the  greatest  menace  to  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  consisted  in  the  maintenance  of  a  colonial  possession  on 
our  northern  border,  it  is  significant  and  impressive  that  this 
arrangement  was  ever  agreed  upon  and  has  never  been  abrogated. 

The  two  countries  have  not  alone  refrained  from  fortifying  the 
shores  of  the  Great  Lakes  but  the  whole  boundary  line,  which 
separates  the  United  States  and  British  America,  is  alike  free  from 
hostile  arsenals  and  frowning  armaments.  This  boundary  line 
is  the  longest  between  any  two  countries  in  the  world.  You  can 
travel  from  end  to  end  throughout  the  whole  four  thousand  miles 
without  seeing  a  single  soldier  in  uniform  on  either  side  of  the 
line.  It  is  a  profoundly  significant  fact  that  it  is  the  one  frontier 
in  the  world  upon  which,  as  Mr.  Mead  has  pointed  out,  perfect 
peace  and  order  have  prevailed. 

While  Chile  and  the  Argentine  Republic  settled  their  differences 
and  agreed  to  disarm,  they  commemorated  the  event  by  uplift- 
ing on  the  summit  of  the  Andes,  nearly  three  miles  above  the 
level  of  the  sea,  a  colossal  statue  of  Christ;  the  Prince  of  Peace. 
They  cast  it  from  the  bronze  of  old  cannon  left  there  by  the  Span- 
iards at  the  time  of  the  struggle  for  Argentine's  independence. 
They  placed  on  it  this  inscription:  "Sooner  shall  these  moun- 
tains crumble  into  dust  than  Chileans  or  Argentines  shall  break 
this  peace  which,  at  the  feet  of  Christ  the  Redeemer,  they  have 
sworn  to  maintain."  No  similar  statue  has  been  lifted  upon  the 
border  which  separates  the  United  States  and  Canada.  But  may 
God  forbid  that  the  time  shall  come  in  the  history  of  these  two 
countries  when  the  folly  of  either  shall  lead  it  to  fortify  against 
the  other,  or  break  the  Truce  of  God  which  they  entered  into  in 
1817. 

The  United  States  has  been  engaged  in  a  number  of  arbitrations 
since  those  provided  for  in  Jay's  treaty.     But  the  most  important 


ROGERS  377 

arbitration  in  which  this  country  has  been  engaged,  and  the  most 
impressive  and  august  arbitration  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
is  that  which  was  authorized  by  the  treaty  of  Washington  in  1871. 
By  that  treaty  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  submitted  to 
arbitration  the  Alabama  Claims.  Mr.  Gladstone  in  speaking  of  the 
matter  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1880  said:  "Although  I 
may  think  the  sentence  was  harsh  in  its  extent  and  unjust  in  its 
basis,  I  regard  the  fine  imposed  on  this  country  as  dust  in  the 
balance  compared  with  the  moral  value  of  the  example  set  when 
these  two  great  nations  of  England  and  America,  which  are  the 
most  fiery  and  the  most  jealous  in  the  world  with  regard  to  any- 
thing that  touches  national  honor,  went  in  peace  and  concord 
before  a  judicial  tribunal  rather  than  resort  to  the  arbitrament 
of  the  sword." 

It  appears  probable  that  a  long  step  forward  in  the  peace 
movement  is  about  to  be  taken  and  that  another  great  moral 
example  to  all  nations  is  about  to  be  set.  Unless  all  indications 
fail  it  is  again  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  which  is  to  take  the  step 
and  set  the  example  and  justify  its  right  to  the  leadership  of  the 
world  in  the  most  important  cause  which  today  commands  the 
thought    of    the    world. 

President  Taft  in  an  address  delivered  on  December  17,  1910, 
said: 

"If  now  we  can  negotiate  and  put  through  a  positive  agreement 
with  some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  interna- 
tional arbitral  court  in  every  issue  which  cannot  be  settled  by 
negotiation,  no  matter  what  it  involves,  whether  honor,  terri- 
tory, or  money,  we  shall  have  made  a  long  step  forward  by  demon- 
strating that  it  is  possible  for  two  nations  at  least  to  establish 
as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due  process  of  law  that  exists 
between  individuals  under  a  government." 

He  has  also  said: 

"Personally  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  matters  of  national 
honor  should  not  be  referred  to  courts  of  arbitration  as  matters 
of  private  or  national  property.  I  know  that  is  going  further 
than  most  men  are  willing  to  go,  but  I  do  not  see  why  questions 
of  honor  should  not  be  submitted  to  tribunals  composed  of  men 


378  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  honor  who  understand  questions  of  national  honor,  to  abide 
by  their  decision  as  well  as  in  other  questions  of  difference  arising 
between  nations." 

These  are  very  notable  deliverances  coming  as  they  do  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  No  man  who  has  filled  that  high 
office  with  the  exception  of  President  Grant  has  ever  before  taken 
so  advanced  a  position  on  this  subject. 

These  statements  of  the  President  at  once  commanded  the 
attention  not  only  of  our  own  people  but  of  the  statesmen  of 
Europe  and  particularly  of  Great  Britain.  The  reply  which 
evoked  was  fully  as  remarkable  as  the  appeal  itself. 

The  English  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  speaking  for  the  British  government  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons on  March  13,  1910,  said: 

"Arbitration  has  been  increasing.  I  should  perhaps  have 
thought  it  unprofitable  to  mention  arbitration  had  it  not  been 
for  the  fact  that  twice  within  the  last  twelve  months  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  has  sketched  out  a  step  in  advance 
more  momentous  than  any  one  thing  that  any  statesman  in  his 
position  has  ventured  to  say  before.  His  words  are  pregnant 
with  very  far  reaching  consequences. 

**Mr.  Taft  recently  made  the  statement  that  he  does  not  see 
personally  any  reason  why  matters  of  national  honor  should  not 
be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbitration.  He  has  also  expressed  the 
opinion  that  if  the  United  States  could  negotiate  a  positive  agree- 
ment with  some  other  nation  to  abide  by  the  adjudication  of  an 
international  arbitral  court  on  every  question  that  could  not  be 
settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter  what  they  involve,  a  long  step 
forward  would  be  taken.  These  are  bold  and  courageous  words. 
We  have  no  proposal  before  us,  and  unless  public  opinion  rises 
to  the  height  of  discussing  a  proposal  of  that  kind  it  may  not  be 
carried  out.  But  supposing  two  of  the  greatest  nations  of  the 
world  were  to  make  it  clear  to  the  whole  world  by  such  an  agree- 
ment that  in  no  circumstances  were  they  going  to  war  again,  I 
venture  to  say  that  it  would  have  a  beneficent  effect  ....  I 
should  be  delighted  to  receive  such  a  proposal.     I  should  consider 


ROGERS  379 

it  so  far  reaching  in  its  consequences  that  it  would  require  not  only 
the  signatures  of  both  governments  but  the  deliberate  sanction 
of  Parliament.     That  I  believe  would  be  obtained. 

"The  general  adoption  of  such  a  system  might  leave  some 
armies  and  navies  still  in  existence,  but  they  would  remain  not 
in  rivalry,  but  as  the  world's  police." 

The  House  of  Commons  received  this  speech  with  enthusi- 
astic cheers. 

These  sentiments  of  Sir  Edward  Grey  seem  to  have  been  re- 
ceived throughout  England  with  almost  universal  enthusiasm. 
The  leader  of  the  opposition,  Mr.  Balfour,  announced  his  hearty 
concurrence  and  his  most  cordial  support.  The  churches,  all 
the  various  Protestant  bodies,  the  Angelicans  and  non-conformists 
alike  responded  enthusiastically.  Almost  the  entire  press  of 
that  country  the  radical  and  the  conservative,  the  imperialistic 
and  the  anti-imperialistic,  alike  united  in  commending  the  nego- 
tiation of  an  Anglo-American  treaty  of  general  arbitration  along 
the  lines  suggested  by  the  remarks  of  the  British  secretary  of  state 
for  foreign  affairs. 

It  is  well  for  the  world  that  the  English  statesmen  led  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey  are  today  so  very  far  in  advance  of  the  opinion 
held  by  Lord  John  Russell,  who,  while  he  was  foreign  secretary, 
announced  that  England  would  never  consent  to  arbitrate  the 
Alabama  Claims  as  to  do  so  would  be  incompatible  with  national 
dignity. 

We  have  read  many  times  in  the  Sacred  Book  that  "he  shall 
judge  between  the  nations,  and  shall  decide  concerning  many 
peoples;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plow-shares  and 
their  spears  into  pruning  hooks;  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  The 
United  States  is  a  Christian  nation.  It  should  believe  in  the 
ultimate  fulfillment  of  the  promise.  It  should  not  forget  that  it 
was  also  written:  "For  as  the  rain  cometTi  down,  and  the  snow 
from  heaven,  and  returneth  not  thither,  but  watereth  the  earth, 
and  maketh  it  bring  forth  and  bud,  that  it  may  give  seed  to  the 
sower  and  bread  to  the  eater. 


380  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

"So  shall  my  word  be  that  goeth  out  of  my  mouth;  it  shall  not 
return  unto  me  void,  but  it  shall  accomplish  that  which  I  please, 
and  it  shall  prosper  in  the  thing  whereto  I  sent  it." 

Pray  God  that  the  day  may  speedily  come  when  nations  shall 
not  learn  war  any  more  and  when 

"  All  men's  good  shall 
Be  each  man's  rule;  and  universal  peace 
Lie  Uke  a  shaft  of  light  across  the  land, 
And  like  a  lane  of  beams  across  the  sea 
Through  all  the  circle  of  the  golden  year." 

Chairman  Trueblood:  After  the  next  speaker,  who  is  the 
last  on  the  program,  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  will  present 
its  report.  It  is  hoped  that  you  will  all  stay  to  hear  the  resolu- 
tions and  to  vote  on  them. 

I  now  have  the  great  pleasure  of  introducing  Rt.  Rev.  John 
G.  Murray,  the  Bishop  of  Maryland. 

WORLD-PEACE,    PROPER,    PRACTICAL   AND 
PROFITABLE 

JOHN  G.  MURRAY 

No  one  can  add  to  the  wisdom  which  has  already  waited  upon 
the  consideration  of  this  good  and  great  subject.  The  peaceable 
adjustment  of  differences  between  individuals  in  their  private 
and  corporate  capacity  by  the  intervention  of  a  third  duly  con- 
stituted and  qualified  agent  has  long  been  an  established  prin- 
ciple in  the  conduct  of  all  human  affairs.  The  effectiveness  of  this 
principle  is  universally  acknowledged  and  its  permanency  assured 
for  all  time.  Its  exercise  prevents  the  disruption  of  society  atid 
the  destruction  of  business  by  protecting  the  righteous  cause  of 
the  weakest  and  circumventing  the  unjust  endeavor  of  the  most 
powerful.  It  maintains  the  established  standard  of  equity,  and 
might  prevails  only  when  it  is  also  right.  It  proclaims  the  in- 
ability of  human  nature  to  duly  recognize  the  rights  of  others, 
or  rightly  divide  any  word  of  truth  when  motives  of  self  interest, 


MURRAY  381 

prejudice  or  passion  prevail.  It  operates  in  and  through  a  tri- 
bunal of  equity  or  justice,  the  very  title  of  which  is  vocative  of 
the  conviction  that  in  no  other  way  can  that  which  is  honestly 
due  each  of  the  disputants  in  a  case  be  impartially  ascertained 
and  equitably  awarded. 

So  successful  has  this  principle  proven  in  the  affairs  of  individ- 
ual life  and  labor  that  the  strongest  minds  in  the  world  have  given 
their  best  thought  to  the  problem  of  its  application  to  and  oper- 
ation in  the  affairs  of  nations  in  their  domestic  and  foreign  rela- 
tions. The  logical  conclusion  of  all  this  consideration,  duly 
deduced  and  formulated,  is,  that  what  has  proven  possible  to 
and  with  the  individual  is  also  possible  to  and  with  nations  of 
individuals;  that  what  is  indispensable  to  the  moral  welfare  of 
man  and  the  enjoyment  of  simple  justice  in  his  individual  capacity 
is  also  necessary  for  the  realization  of  the  same  condition  in  his 
every  reciprocal  relationship;  that  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the 
universe  is  not  going  to  wink  at  that  in  nations  which  He  unqual- 
ifiedly condemns  and  severely  punishes  in  the  individuals  com- 
prising those  nations;  and  that  the  same  wisdom  and  learning 
and  invention  of  man  which  were  competent  under  God  to  con- 
ceive and  construct  a  tribunal  qualified  and  meet  for  all  require- 
ments in  the  case  of  individuals  will  not  be  found  lacking  under 
that  same  God,  in  ability  to  make  proper  provision  for  the  needs 
of  a  world  of  nations  when  those  nations,  under  the  inspiration 
of  a  mighty  impulse  to  lay  hold  upon  the  righteousness  and  rest 
of  peace,  shall  stretch  out  their  hands  and  implore  the  necessary 
assistance  to  supply  their  needs. 

I  am  in  perfect  harmony  and  full  accord  with  these  stated  con- 
clusions because  I  believe  the  idea  of  world-peace,  national  and 
international,  is  not  only  perfect  in  its  consistency  with  the  highest 
ideal  of  the  individual  life,  but  also  because  I  am  convinced  that 
the  pursuit  of  this  world-peace  is  in  the  highest  sense  proper, 
practical  and  profitable. 

It  is  proper  because  it  is  patriotic  and  philanthropic.  The 
true  patriot  may  not  hesitate  at  need  to  die  for  his  country,  and 
no  one  here  or  elsewhere  would  deny  him  the  glory  of  his  death. 
But  what  the  world  has  needed  in  all  ages,  and  is  still  crying  for 


382  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

today  is  the  service  of  life,  not  the  sacrifice  of  death.  The  neces- 
sity for  the  death  of  anyone  now,  thank  God,  has  been  abolished 
forever  by  the  death  of  One.  Man's  prerogative  is  to  enjoy  life 
and  to  enjoy  it  more  abundantly.  The  abundance  of  that  life 
is  to  overflow  for  the  welfare  of  his  fellow  man  and  the  glory  of 
his  God,  And  the  patriot  of  this  day  and  time  is  he  who  not 
only  enhances  the  wealth  and  welfare  of  his  country  in  construc- 
tive occupation  of  peace,  but  makes  the  pursuit  of  peace  with 
God  and  fellow  man  everywhere  the  chief  object  of  his  aim  and  the 
supreme  end  of  his  every  endeavor. 

The  pursuit  of  this  world-peace  is  philanthropic,  because  the 
office  of  true  philanthropy  is  not  so  much  the  relief  of  destitution 
and  need,  as  the  prevention  or  amelioration  of  the  condition  pro- 
ducing that  destitution  and  need.  The  philanthropy  of  the  Red 
Cross,  while  it  breathes  upon  the  wounded  and  dying  on  the  scarred 
and  bloody  battlefifeld,  the  benediction  of  love,  sadly  moves  on 
its  errand  of  mercy  in  the  sable  garb  of  mourning  and  desola- 
tion and  death.  The  philanthropy  of  the  olive  branch  may  ap- 
peal less  to  our  imagination,  and  fail  to  invite  to  such  considerable 
degree  our  cooperative  sympathy,  but  it  too  is  on  an  errand  of  love, 
and  clothed  in  garments  of  light,  its  movement  is  full  of  joy,  for 
its  mission  is  to  make  real  the  angelic  message,  ''Peace  on  Earth, 
Good  will  to  men,"  and  to  banish  every  battlefield  from  the  face 
of  the  earth  forever. 

The  pursuit  of  this  world-peace  is  practical  because  it  is  pro- 
gressive. It  is  not  the  web  from  which  is  woven  the  Utopian 
dreams  of  fancy,  but  the  material  for  garb  of  forceful  fact  to  clothe 
universal  endeavor  with  a  new  power  of  mighty  accomplishment 
in  every  sphere  of  constructive  and  progressive  utility  in  which 
man  lives  and  labors  and  loves.  The  words,  "They  shall  beat 
their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks; 
nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they 
^learn  war  any  more,"  constitute  a  declaration  of  prophecy,  the 
fulfilment  of  which  shall  in  the  day  of  the  accomplishment  of  the 
perfect  will  of  God  be  realized,  it  is  true;  but  they  are  also  descrip- 
tive of  conditions  with  which  we  are  perfectly  fainiliar  even  now, 
the  destructive  desolation  of  war,  the  constructive  conquests  of 


MURRAY  383 

peace.  In  every  age  and  under  every  sky  the  history  of  every 
people  has  been,  and  is,  that  Peace  is  the  hand  maiden  of  prac- 
tical progress  and  prosperity  and  that  war  has  been,  and  is,  the 
harlot  of  wanton  wickedness  and  waste.  The  one  walks  in  the 
light  of  the  love  and  law  of  God;  the  other  haunts  the  darkness  of 
the  hatred  and  lawlessness  of  Satan.  The  one  is  established  in 
and  exists  upon  the  principle  of  practical  progress;  the  other  is 
incited  by  and  lives  upon  the  spoils  of  perfidious  plunder. 

But  my  commendation  of  this  cause  is  most  positive  in  that  the 
pursuit  of  world-peace  is  profitable  because  it  is  pious,  and  in  the 
end  must  win.  To  some  of  us  the  end  seems  near.  The  action 
of  our  own  President  in  the  interest  of  a  court  of  equity  and  jus- 
tice, designed  for  and  adapted  to  the  needs  of  nations,  which  ac- 
tion has  the  support  and  gratitude  of  the  best  citizenship  of  our 
own  land,  and  the  unqualified  reciprocal  approval  of  the  enlight- 
ened civilization  of  all  other  lands,  encourages  us  in  our  hope  and 
sustains  us  in  our  conviction.  But  whether  the  coming  day  of  the 
victory  of  universal  peace  has  actually  dawned,  or  whether  we 
have  yet  to  grope  through  the  darkness  of  another  night  of  war, 
the  light  of  amicable  adjudication  which  is  to  illumine  every  land 
and  sea  is  steadily  shooting  its  shafts  into  the  shadows  of  strife; 
and  to  every  doubter  and  skeptic  here  and  elsewhere,  our  message 
is  that  the  sun  of  righteousness  in  this  sphere  of  Divine  provision 
for,  and  supervision  over,  human  affairs  has  arisen  never  to  set 
until  God's  pious  proclamation  of  peace  for  man's  profit  shall 
obtain  and  direct  and  control  all  matter,  mind,  and  morals,  in  the 
whole  universe  of  His  creation. 

And  so  my  word  to  this  Peace  Congress  is  one  of  commendation 
in  that  its  cause  vindicates  valor  in  its  consistency  with  right; 
is  proper  in  its  proclamation  of  the  true  principles  of  patriotism 
and  philanthropy;  is  practical  in  its  contribution  to  the  perma- 
nent progress  of  the  world  in  everything  that  makes  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  body,  the  enlightenment  of  the  mind  and  the  uplift 
of  the  soul;  and  is  profitable  in  its  accordance  with  and  obedience 
to  the  pious  will  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  Divine  word  which  we 
are  positively  assured  shall  in  the  end  accomplish  that  where- 
unto  it  is  sent. 


3S4  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

My  attitude  is  that  of  willing  and  hearty  cooperation;  and  my 
one  word  of  loving  admonition  to  every  advocate  of  the  cause  is 
that  he  shall  never  forget  that  it  is  the  cause  of  God  and  not  of 
man;  that  in  its  activity  and  accomplishment  every  agency  of 
God  stands  enlisted  and  engaged;  and  that  in  this  as  in  all  other 
movements  that  make  for  the  establishment  of  principles  that 
are  eternal  as  against  the  temporary  expedient  and  makeshifts 
of  time,  we  are  every  one  ambassadors  of  that  King  of  Peace  to 
whom  Prophet  declared  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  of  whom 
Apostle  af&rmed  every  tongue  shall  proclaim  Him  God  and  Father. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  time  has  now  arrived  for  us 
to  hear  from  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  The  success  of  this 
Congress  is  due  to  the  never-tiring  efforts  and  hard  work  of  Mr. 
Theodore  Marburg,  of  Baltimore.  I  think  that  a  resolution  of 
thanks  should  be  passed  for  Mr.  Marburg.  He  has  been  the  mov- 
ing spirit  of  this  Congress,  and  he  will  now  read  you  the  Resolu- 
tions adopted  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Theodore  Marburg:  My  services  amount  to  very 
little.  To  arrange  a  program  and  a  series  of  meetings  such  as 
this  called  for  earnest  cooperation  on  the  part  of  many  men. 
The  counsel  of  the  president  of  the  Congress,  Mr.  Hamilton 
Holt,  was  most  helpful  throughout,  notably  in  connection  with 
the  program  and  the  resolutions.  He  emphasized  particularly 
the  importance  of  having  the  resolutions  dwell  upon  the  things 
still  to  be  done  in  preference  to  recording  and  lauding  past  achieve- 
ments. Then,  too,  the  chairmen  and  members  of  the  various 
committees  were  thoroughly  interested  and  most  generous  in 
the  time  they  gave  to  their  task.  Especially  is  this  true  of  Mr. 
Richard  White,  chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee.  But  if 
there  is  any  one  man  who  has  borne  the  burden  of  the  day  more 
than  another  it  is  the  executive  secretary,  Mr.  Tunstall  Smith, 
and  I  should  like  to  shift  to  him  this  resolution  of  thanks.  No 
volume  of  work  has  been  too  big  for  him,  no  task  too  difficult. 
From  the  beginning  he  has  made  considerable  sacrifices  and  I 
want  to  say  that  anyone  seeking  executive  ability  will  find  it  there. 


RESOLUTIONS 


385 


In  framing  the  resolutions  your  committee  designedly  omitted 
certain  big  sides  of  the  peace  question,  such,  for  example,  as 
propaganda.  Our  main  object  was  to  raise  a  little  higher  the 
plane  of  practical  institutions  which  will  o£fer  a  substitute  for 
war.  We  feared  that  if  we  included  these  other  sides  of  the 
movement  then  the  practical  things  and  what  you  regard  as  the 
big  things  would  be  lost  sight  of.  They  are  the  big  things  because 
if  we  get  institutions  which  will  raise  an  "international  question 
mark"  whenever  nations  are  inclined  to  war,  institutions  which 
will  cause  the  element  of  pride  to  drop  out  from  controversies, 
above  all  a  court  which  will  open  its  doors  and  invite  the  nations 
of  the  world  to  enter,  wars  will  be  less  frequent.  The  resolu- 
tions read  as  follows: 

RESOLUTIONS 


Whereas,  there  is  a  great  and  growing  sentiment  between  Eng- 
lish-speaking peoples  in  favor  of  the  settlement  of  all  disputes  by 
means  other  than  war,  a  sentiment  which  has  found  memorable 
expression  in  the  utterances  of  President  William  Howard  Taft 
and  of  Sir  Edward  Grey,  therefore  be  it  1 

Resolved,  that  the  Congress  records  its  profound  appreciation 
of  the  attitude  and  action  of  President  Taft  and  Sir  Edward  Grey 
on  this  important  subject  and  expresses  its  firm  conviction  that, 
if  the  proposed  treaty  is  made,  the  example  thus  set  by  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  will  be  followed  by  other  nations. 


c 


b 


u 


Resolved,  that  this  Congress  notes  with  satisfaction  the  zeal 
and  ability  with  which  the  Honorable  Philander  C.  Knox,  Sec- 
retary of  State,  has  been  carrying  forward  the  work  initiated  by 
his  predecessor  looking  to  the  establishment  of  the  International 
Prize  Court  and  of  the  International  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice. 
It  regards  both  these  institutions  as  of  the  highest  importance 


^ 


386  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

in  themselves  and  urges  the  earliest  possible  establishment  of  the 
Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  by  such  of  the  powers  as  are  willing  to 
organize  it,  leaving  it  open  to  the  adherence  of  other  powers  later 
on  and  free  of  access  to  them  in  the  meantime. 


Whereas,  the  practice  of  not  including  within  the  scope  of  so- 
called  general  arbitration  treaties  questions  which  affect  the  vital 
interests  or  the  honor  of  the  contracting  states  and  the  interests 
of  third  parties  greatly  diminishes  the  value  of  such  treaties,  be 
it 
/^     Resolved,  that  this  Congress  urges  upon  the  United  States  Gov- 
/.    ernment  the  importance  of  formulating  an  all-inclusive  arbitra- 
1   tion  treaty  on  the  lines  of  the  proposed  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
;  with  a  view  to  its  adoption  jointly  by  the  leading  powers. 


Whereas,  the  treaty  relating  to  pecuniary  claims  originally 
adopted  by  the  Second  International  American  Conference,  and 
renewed  by  the  Third  and  Fourth  Conferences,  not  only  defini- 
\  tively  binds  the  High  Contracting  Parties  to  submit  to  arbitra- 
'^  tion  a  certain  and  very  large  and  important  class  of  cases  but  does 
this  without  making  qualifications  or  exceptions  that  nullify  or 
tend  to  nullify  the  force  of  the  engagement,  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress,  following  the  practical  precedent 
here  set,  recommends  the  more  general  adoption  by  governments 
of  treaties  whereby  all  claims  for  pecuniary  loss  or  damage  which 
may  be  presented  by  their  respective  citizens  or  subjects  and  which 
cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  through  diplomatic  channels  shall 
be  submitted  to  The  Hague  Court. 

5 

/ 
'^     Resolved,  that  the  proposed  celebration  in  191 5  of  the  one  hun- 
dredth anniversary  of  peace  among  English-speaking  peoples  is 
viewed  by  the  Congress  with  satisfaction,  the  more  especially  as 


RESOLUTIONS  387 

attention  will  thus  be  directed  to  the  happy  results  of  the  enlight- 
ened statesmanship  which  has  refrained  from  erecting  fortifica- 
tions along  the  3700  miles  of  frontier  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States  and  has  excluded  war  vessels  from  the  boundary 
waters. 

6 

Resolved,  that  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress  records  its 
satisfaction  at  the  resolution  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  calling  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  appoint  a  commission  to  investigate  and  report  back  to  the 
government  the  possibilities  of  an  international  understanding 
with  regard  to  armaments,  international  cooperation  and  new 
institutions  calculated  to  preserve  peace,  thereby  carrying  out 
the  wish  of  the  Second  American  Peace  Congress  expressed  by 
resolution.  The  Congress  understands  this  Commission  to  be  a 
purely  American  Commission,  not  endowed  with  diplomatic 
functions,  and  entertains  the  conviction  that  the  Commission 
should  be  appointed  at  an  early  day  and  should  begin  its  labors 
without  regard  to  the  opinion  which  other  powers  may  entertain 
as  to  possible  results.  / 

7 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  urges  the  government  of  the  United 
States  to  enter  upon  negotiations  with  other  powers  looking  to 
the  formation  of  a  league  of  peace  planned  simply  to  settle  by 
amicable  means  all  questions  of  whatever  nature  which  may  arise 
between  the  contracting  powers,  with  no  idea  of  the  employment 
of  force  to  impose  the  will  of  the  league  on  any  of  its  members 
nor  to  force  any  outside  power  to  join  the  league,  nor  to  force  any 
outside  power  to  arbitrate  a  dispute,  nor  to  enforce  the  decision 
of  an  international  tribunal  of  any  character,  nor  to  use  force  in 
any  other  way.  The  successful  conduct  of  such  a  league  would  be 
greatly  promoted  by  annual  conventions  which  would  serve  the 
double  purpose  of  resolving  difficulties  that  may  have  arisen  be- 
tween members  of  the  league  during  the  year  and  of  formulating 
international  practice. 


<r^' 


V 


388  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

8 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  congratulates  the  governments  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  on  the  successful  settlement 
by  arbitration  of  the  Newfoundland  Fisheries  dispute,  a  case 
which  diplomacy  had  vainly  attempted  to  settle  for  the  greater 
part  of  a  century;  and  that  the  Congress  points  to  this  case  as  a 
striking  example  of  the  usefulness  of  the  Permanent  Court  of 
Arbitration  at  The  Hague. 

9 

Whereas,  this  Congress  views  with  concern  the  heavy  burden 
imposed  on  civilized  nations  by  armaments  and  especially  their 
continued  increase  despite  the  growing  sentiment  in  favor  of  the 
amicable  settlement  of  international  disputes,  be  it 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  favors,  not  a  spasmodic,  but  a  con- 
tinuous study  of  the  limitation  of  armaments  by  ofl&cial  com- 
missions of  the  various  governments  interested. 


10 


Resolved,  that  this  Congress  calls  attention  to  the  importance 
of  an  early  determination  of  the  measures  to  be  brought  before 
s/  the  Third  Hague  Conference  in  order  that  opportunity  may  be 
given  for  such  thorough  preliminary  study  by  the  governments 
interested  that  the  delegates  to  the  Conference  may  come  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed. 

II 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  expresses  to  Mr.  Edwin  Ginn  its 
profound  gratitude  for  his  munificent  contributions  to  the  cause 
of  peace. 

12 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  expresses  to  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie 
its  profound  gratitude  for  his  munificent  contributions  to  the 
cause  of  peace. 


RESOLUTIONS  .  389 


13 


Whereas,  there  has  been  a  manifest  need  for  a  central  rep- 
resentative body  which  shall  serve  to  coordinate  the  efforts  of  all 
the  societies  in  America  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  international 
disputes  by  methods  other  than  war,  as  emphasized  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  at  the  opening  session  of  this  Congress, 
therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  that  this  body  of  delegates  declare  that  this  National 
Peace  Congress  shall  hereafter  be  known  as  the  American  Peace 
Congress,  that  it  shall  be  a  permanent  institution  which  shall 
meet  once  in  two  years,  and  that  while  the  Congress  is  not  in 
session  its  Executive  Committee  shall  be  charged  with  all  the 
powers  of  the  Congress,  provided  that  said  Executive  Committee 
shall  have  power  to  reorganize  by  enlarging  its  numbers  so  as  to 
become  representative  and  after  its  reorganization  shall  elect  its 
own  chairman.     And  be  it  further 

Resolved,  that  said  Committee  shall  adopt  a  form  of  organiza- 
tion which  will  enable  it  to  act  as  a  clearing  house  for  all  the  soci- 
eties represented  at  this  Congress. 

14 

Whereas,  the  demand  that  our  own  citizens  abroad  receive 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  and  that  persons  guilty  of  violat- 
ing their  personal  or  property  rights  be  punished,  is  weakened  by 
the  inability  of  the  Federal  government  of  the  United  States, 
under  the  law,  to  punish  similar  ofifenses  against  foreigners  within 
its  borders,  and 

Whereas,  the  absence  of  such  power  has  been  a  cause  of  fric- 
tion in  the  past  and  is  likely  to  give  rise  to  difficulties  in  future, 
therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  that  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress  urges  upon 
the  United  States  Congress  early  attention  to  the  recommendation 
of  President  Taft  for  the  enactment  of  laws  which  will  confer  upon 
the  Federal  government  the  power  to  fulfil  its  treaty  obligations 
in  this  respect. 


39©  THIRD   AMEEICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

■       i        '^ 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  favors  the  suggestion  that  nations 
vi"  should  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  loans  being  raised  by  their 
subjects  or  citizens  in  order  to  enable  foreign  nations  to  carry  on 
war.     And  be  it  further 

Resolved,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  be  requested 
to  include  this  question  in  the  program  of  the  Third  Hague  Con- 
ference. 

i6 

Whereas,  international  controversies  have  frequently  arisen 
out  of  disputed  boundaries,  and 

Whereas,  precise  geographic  delimitation  would  remove  from 
the  field  of  controversy  a  very  disturbing  element,  this  Congress 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  precise  delimitation  of  the  boundaries 
of  American  states  would  be  in  the  interest  of  international  peace, 
and 

Whereas,  the  North  and  Baltic  Seas  Conventions  establish- 
ing the  territorial  status  quo  of  those  regions  have  proved  the 
practicability  of  insuring  territorial  integrity  by  such  means, 
therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  that  this  Congress  calls  to  the  attention  of  the  United 
States  government  the  advisability  of  including  within  the  pro- 
gram of  the  Fifth  International  American  Conference  proposals 
to  establish  an  international  commission  for  the  delimitation  of 
the  boundaries  of  the  states  of  the  two  Americas  and  for  the  con- 
clusion of  a  convention  which  shall  maintain  the  integrity  of  the 
boundaries  so  delimitated. 

Resolved,  that  in  order  to  enable  the  executive  and  judicial 
departments  of  our  government  fully  to  discharge  the  interna- 
tional duties  of  the  United  States  a  thorough  revision  of  the 
neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States  should  be  made. 


RESOLUTIONS  39 1 

18 

Resolved,  that  the  hearty  thanks  of  this  Congress  be  extended 
to  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  for  its  very  great  hospitahty. 

Mr.  Theodore  Marburg:  The  resolution  relating  to  the 
organization  of  a  national  council  is  among  the  most  important 
resolutions  of  the  Congress.  You  heard  President  Taft  refer  to 
the  need  of  coordination  among  the  societies  whose  aim  is  the 
peaceful  settlement  of  international  disputes.  The  question  was 
taken  up  at  the  Mohonk  Conference  three  years  ago,  but  un- 
fortunately that  body  only  meets  once  a  year  and  has  not  been 
able  to  reach  a  decision.  Now,  we  have  a  living  thing  right 
here  and  we  do  not  propose  to  let  it  die.  We  represent  the  lead- 
ing societies  in  America  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  disputes 
by  means  othert  han  war.  If  we  adjourn  now  sine  die,  we  allow 
this  Congress  to  go  out  of  existence.  That  we  don't  propose  to 
do.  What  we  want  is  to  make  this  a  permanent  congress  with 
sessions  once  every  two  years  and  make  it  as  established  and 
fixed  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  then  provide  an 
Executive  Committee  which  shall  act  for  the  Congress  between 
sessions  and  likewise  function  as  a  national  council  or  clearing 
house.  Let  us  make  sure  of  a  council  and  then,  if  necessary,  merge  ^ 
it  with  others  which  may  be  created  later  on.  If  the  Mohonk 
Conference  elects  a  national  council  composed  of  good  meU;  we  may  j 
appoint  identical  men  so  as  to  merge  the  two  bodies.  If  we  find 
the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  Peace  disposed  to  assume  the  office 
of  a  clearing  house  then  we  may  work  through  them. 

Mr.  Edwin  D.  Mead:  I  move  the  adoption  of  these  resolu- 
tions. I  have  been  present  at  all  three  of  the  American  Congresses. 
I  think  I  was  a  member  of  the  Resolution  Committee  of  the  first 
two  Congresses,  and  I  know  the  difficulty  and  care  with  which  such 
a  platform  as  this  must  be  prepared,  and  I  recommend  these 
resolutions  primarily  because  every  one  of  them  means  something. 
Resolutions  too  often  are  merely  rhetorical  and  seldom  lead  any- 
where. These  resolutions  are  all  necessary  and  are  pregnant  at 
this  hour.     We  heard  that  powerful  address  of  Dean  Rogers 


392  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

/  this  afternoon.  There  has  never  been  a  year  in  the  peace  move- 
j  ment  when  the  United  States  took  a  more  advanced  position 
[  than  during  the  time  between  the  Second  National  Congress  and 
the  Congress  in  which  we  are  gathered  today.  The  President  of 
the  United  States  has  placed  himself  at  the  head  of  all  the  heads 
of  the  great  nations  by  standing  for  arbitration.  The  Congress 
has  placed  itself  at  the  head  of  all  legislative  bodies  by  moving 
the  reduction  of  armaments,  and  our  secretary  of  state  has  placed 
himself  at  the  head  of  all  foreign  offices  of  the  world  by  moving 
for  the  organization  of  the  International  Prize  Court  and  of  the 
International  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice,  and  finally  the  friends  of 
peace  in  this  country  have  placed  themselves  at  the  head  of  all 
benefactors  by  their  donations  this  year.  I  rejoice  that  there  are 
resolutions  here  contained  in  recognition  of  these  deeds.  I  rejoice 
that  there  has  been  in  this  Congress  such  addresses  as  those  of 
the  Hon.  James  Slayden  and  Hon.  James  Speyer. 

Richard  Cobden  said  what  Mr.  Speyer  said,  Oscar  Straus  has 
also  said  it,  but  Mr.  Speyer  said  it  with  power,  and  I  am  glad  that 
,  that  was  framed  into  a  resolution  and  Congressman  Slayden's 
exhortation  to  us  respecting  the  territories  of  our  sister  nations. 
I  notice  that  the  Resolution  Committee  was  a  very  representa- 
tive one.  We  are  not  prepared  to  enter  into  detailed  or  technical 
or  fine  discussions  on  these  points.  I  hope  that  will  not  follow. 
We  have  had  a  Resolution  Committee  that  was  entitled  to  our 
trust,  and  I  think  we  should  trust  it. 

There  was  one  resolution  which,  when  I  moved  to  adopt  these 
resolutions,  I  did  so  with  misgivings,  and  that  was  the  one  touch- 

Cing  the  organization  of  all  the  societies  represented  at  the  Con- 
gress and  with  reference  to  future  meetings.  But  I  think  it  is 
well  to  adopt  this  resolution  as  it  stands,  because  its  purpose  is 
excellent,  and  I  believe  that  its  details,  in  the  main,  are  wise,  and 
I  wish  to  express  my  great  satisfaction  in  these  most  pertinent 
and  pregnant  resolutions  which  are  the  culmination  of  this  Con- 
gress. 

Rev.  Oliver  Huckle:  I  rise  for  the  privilege  of  seconding 
this  motion.  Some  of  us  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  periods 
of  human  history  have  got  to  be  thought  of  differently  in  the 


RESOLUTIONS  393 

future  from  the  way  they  have  been  thought  of  in  the  past.  Con- 
stitutional government  is  just  coming  into  the  midst  of  some  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  Daybreak  is  just  coming  in  Turkey,  and 
another  epoch  in  international  arbitration  for  the  settlement  of 
international  disputes.  We  can  date  our  modern  history  from 
the  call  of  the  First  Hague  Congress.  These  resolutions  repre- 
sent the  best  spirit  and  thought  of  these  modern  times.  Some  of 
us  feel  that  the  developments  in  the  peace  movement  in  the 
last  ten  years  have  been  more  momentous  in  the  history  of  the 
human  race  than  those  of  ten  centuries  preceding.  One  thousand 
years  is  sometimes  with  the  Lord  as  one  day,  but  sometimes  a 
single  day  is  as  potential  in  its  meaning  as  one  year.  These 
resolutions  have  something  of  the  spirit  of  these  on-rushing  times 
in  which  we  are  living.  We  believe  that  the  Third  American  Peace 
Congress  has  reached  the  high-water  mark  in  the  peace  movement 
of  the  world,  and  these  resolutions  register  the  spirit  and  senti- 
ment and  something  of  what  has  resulted  from  the  dignified  and 
significant  utterances  of  the  distinguished  men  who  have  assem- 
bled here,  things  which  will  have  influence  on  the  history  of  the 
world.  We  believe  these  resolutions  are  such  that  we  should 
give  our  hearty  aid  unanimous  approval  to.  Therefore,  as  a 
member  of  the  American  Peace  Society  and  as  vice-president 
of  the  Maryland  Peace  Society  and  as  one  who  has  something, 
at  least,  of  the  vision  of  the  peace  movement  from  the  little 
house  in  the  woods  at  The  Hague,  and  as  one  being  at  Portsmouth 
and  one  also  present  as  a  delegate  at  the  First  National  Peace  Coq- 
gress,  I  feel  that  it  is  a  great  privilege  and  an  honor  to  second  the 
motion  made  for  the  adoption  of  these  resolutions. 

Mr.  Hartman  (of  Lancaster,  Pa.):  I  heartily  coincide  with 
the  sentiments  expressed.  I  was  not  able  to  be  here  at  the  open- 
ing of  this  Convention,  but  I  have  been  at  the  previous  conven- 
tions. 

There  is  just  one  sentiment,  however,  that  does  not  meet  with 
my  accord  and  that  was  what  was  said  with  regard  to  limited 
armament,  which  was  brought  up  before  the  previous  conventions 
and  approved.  But  neither  of  the  conventions — and  I  have  not 
heard  any  sentiments  expressed  by  these  resolutions — stated  a 


394  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

method  by  which  the  limited  armament  was  to  be  achieved.  I 
have  forwarded  to  the  president  a  copy  of  the  two  former  resolu- 
tions, which  I  offered  in  New  York  and  in  Chicago,  but  which  the 
president  seems  not  to  have  received— that  is  the  president  of 
this  Congress.  I  do  not  see  how  this  country  or  the  nations  of 
the  world  are  to  achieve  limited  armaments  except  by  some 
method  by  which  the  powers  jointly  will  adopt  some  method  by 
which  the  navies  of  all  these  nations  now  existing,  and  the  armies, 
may  be  limited.  I  believe  that  whatever  the  powers  agree  to  do 
they  can  do,  but  if  they  do  not  agree,  you  cannot  achieve  limited 
armament,  so  we  must  have  a  method — 

Chairman  Trueblood:  Do  you  want  to  move  an  amend- 
ment? 

Mr.  Hartman:  Well,  make  it  a  resolution  that  this  Congress 
recommends  to  The  Hague  Congress — because  they  are  the  legal 
body  and  we  are  not,  and  they  represent  the  powers  and  therefore 
they  can  take  legal  action  on  the  adoption  of  amendments  or 
resolutions  which  we  advocate;  so  I  move  that  this  convention 
adopt  the  method  which  I  have  suggested  heretofore  in  previous 
resolutions,  or  some  method  equally  as  good. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  I  think  I  can  explain  just  what  Mr. 
Hartman  means.  He  proposes  that  this  Congress  should  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  an  international  patrol  of  war  vessels  on  the 
sea  in  order  to  get  a  combination  of  the  navies  of  the  world  for 
the  protection  of  the  commerce  of  the  world.  Is  the  amendment 
seconded? 

(The  amendment  was  duly  seconded,  and  upon  being  put  to 
a  vote  was  lost.) 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  question  is  now  on  the  adoption 
of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Mead,  seconded  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Huckle, 
that  these  resolutions  be  approved  and  adopted  as  a  whole. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals  :  Nature  has  given  to  me  a  slow  mind, 
if  not  a  stupid  one,  and  I  would  like  to  know  what  I  am  going  to 
vote  on  with  reference  to  this  article  about  the  coordination  of  all 
the  different  peace  societies.  This  is  the  biggest  question  we 
have  tackled  yet.  Now,  these  resolutions  were  not  read  until 
half  past  five,  and  we  should  be  out  of  here  at  least  by  six  o'clock. 


RESOLUTIONS  395 

I  do  not  feel  competent  to  form  a  snapshot  opinion  on  this  ques- 
tion. I  would  like  to  know  how  that  Committee  is  to  be  ap- 
pointed. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  Chair  understands  that  this 
resolution  is  ofifered  to  continue  the  Executive  Committee  of  this 
Congress  until  the  next  Congress,  and  if  it  sees  fit,  it  can  ally 
the  various  other  societies,  and  whatever  it  wishes  it  may  suggest 
to  the  next  Peace  Congress. 

Mr.  Hayes:  This  has  taken  a  form  now  that  I  seriously  object 
to.  I  do  not  object  to  the  organization  of  a  committee,  but  I 
am  a  fervent  believer  that  this  movement  should  combine  all  these 
societies  and  the  great  mass  of  people  to  unify  all  these  interests 
and  I  am  not  now  ready  to  see  a  motion  pass  that  we  shall  wait 
for  two  years.     I  am  in  favor  of  taking  some  steps  now. 

Mr.  Alfred  H.  Love:     We  have  been  eminently  favored  in 
these  resolutions,  and  as  I  must  leave  now,  I  do  so  leaving  my  vote      c^-  '''^  -7 
for  them.  )\'^i  - /t^  -> 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals:  I  must  say  that  I  cannot  vote  for 
that  one  resolution,  and  I  move  that  the  resolution  that  I  refer 
to  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Hamilton  Holt:     Let  me  read  that  resolution  (reading): 

"Whereas,  there  has  been  a  manifest  need  for  a  central  rep- 
resentative body  which  shall  serve  to  coordinate  the  efforts  of  all 
the  societies  in  America  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  international 
disputes  by  methods  other  than  war,  as  emphasized  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  at  the  opening  session  of  this  Congress, 
therefore  be  it. 

''Resolved,  that  this  body  of  delegates  declare  that  this  Na- 
tional Peace  Congress  shall  hereafter  be  known  as  the  American 
Peace  Congress,  that  it  shall  be  a  permanent  institution  which 
shall  meet  once  in  two  years,  and  that  while  the  Congress  is  not 
in  session  its  Executive  Committee  shall  be  charged  with  all  the 
powers  of  the  Congress,  provided  that  said  Executive  Committee 
shall  have  power  to  reorganize  by  enlarging  its  numbers  so  as  to 
become  representative  and  after  its  reorganization  shall  elect  its 
own  chairman.     And  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  that  said  Committee  shall  adopt  a  form  of  organiza- 


U/V-j 


396  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tion  which  will  enable  it  to  act  as  a  clearing  house  for  all  the  soci- 
eties represented  at  this  Congress." 

That  will  have  no  effect  unless  the  things  which  they  suggest 
are  agreed  to  by  the  other  societies.  It  has  no  power  to  do  any- 
thing except  to  perpetuate  this  Congress.  That  was  done  so 
as  to  continue  a  series  of  Congresses  every  two  years.  There 
had  to  be  some  permanent  machinery,  and  as  the  matter  was  com- 
plex we  thought  that  it  would  be  better  to  leave  it  in  the  hands  of 
the  Executive  Committee  than  to  have  another  committee  ap- 
pointed. 

Mr.  Hartman:  Wouldn't  it  be  better  to  have  a  committee 
composed  of  the  presidents  of  all  the  other  societies?  The  com- 
mittee would  know  how  to  reorganize  itself.  The  Mohonk  Con- 
ference is  working  on  a  similar  plan.  We  are  all  here  officially 
representing  different  peace  societies  throughout  the  country. 
If  we  want  to  join  with  the  Mohonk  Conference,  we  can  join  with 
them,  and  if  we  find  that  they  do  something  unwise  we  don't 
need  to  merge  with  them,  but  we  simply  continue  this  movement 
with  the  power  to  take  ^advantage  of  these  things. 

A  Voice:     Mr.  Chairman,  I  call  for  the  question. 

Chairman  Trtjeblood:  It  has  been  moved  by  Mr.  Beals 
that  this  one  resolution  be  stricken  from  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Resolutions. 

Mr.  Edwin  Mead:  I  think  that  there  is  not  such  a  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  that  resolution  about  working  out  future  confer- 
ences but  as  to  its  being  a  clearing  house  for  all  the  other  societies 
of  the  country.  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  take  the  votes  on 
those  two  sections  separately. 

A  Voice:     I  second  the  motion. 

Chairman  Trueblood  :  The  first  part  of  the  resolution  simply 
perpetuates  this  Congress  through  this  Executive  Committee, 
giving  it  the  power  to  call  the  next  Congress  two  years  hence  and 
arrange  a  place  of  meeting  and  have  the  local  committee  appointed 
As  I  understand  it,  then,  there  is  now  a  motion  before  the  house 
to  strike  out  this  whole  clause. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Beals:  Then  I  will  withdraw  my  motion 
and  the  second  will  be  withdrawn,  and  as  I  understand  it,  the  f  unc- 


RESOLUTIONS  397 

tion  of  this  new  body  will  be  simply  the  holding  of  a  Congress 
two  years  hence. 

Mr.  Hayes:  I  submit  that  the  Executive  Committee  ought 
to  be  constituted,  but  that  the  limitations  should  be  taken  off. 
Let  them  hold  a  meeting  and  form  an  organization  and  bring  this 
body  together  again.     Give  them  more  power  than  they  had. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Mead  that  the  two  parts  of  the  resolution  be  divided. 

(Mr.  Hamilton  Holt  then  read  the  first  clause  of  Resolution 
No.  13.) 

Chairman  Trueblood:  We  will  now  take  a  vote  on  that 
portion  of  the  resolution. 

(Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  the  first  clause  of  Resolution  No. 
13  was  adopted.) 

Mr.  Hamilton  Holt:  I  will  now  read  the  second  clause  (read- 
ing). 

Mr.  Humphrey:  I  move  that  every  society  or  organization 
represented  here  should  be  included  on  that  Executive  Committee. 
I  think  a  declaration  of  the  Chairman  to  that  effect  will  satisfy 
all  of  us. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  That  Executive  Committee  is  given 
power  to  do  just  that  thing,  to  enlarge  itself  and  make  it  a  com- 
mittee of  ten  or  fifty  members. 

Mr.  Hamilton  Holt:  That  is  what  this  resolution  says  here, 
and  I  think  you  can  trust  your  committeemen. 

Mr.  Humphrey:  Well,  I  move  that  the  Executive  Committee 
be  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  organizations  represented 
in  this  Congress. 

Mr.  Edwin  Mead:  I  suppose  there  are  fifty  or  a  hundred 
organizations  represented  here. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  Yes,  sir;  many  of  which  are  not  peace 
societies  at  all.  I  think  it  would  be  unwise  to  adopt  such  a 
resolution.  Let  the  Executive  Committee  work  out  its  own 
extension. 

Mr.  Humphrey:  I  will  withdraw  my  motion.  The  Chair 
is  a  member  of  that  Committee  and  will  certainly  exercise  his 
personal  influence  in  an  effort  to  get  that  committee  to  enlarge 


398  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

itself.     I  suppose  that  there  are  more  than  three-quarters  of  the 
societies  represented  here  which  are  not  peace  societies. 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  question  is  now  on  the  second 
part  of  the  Resolution  No.  13.  All  in  favor  of  the  second  clause 
of  the  resolution  will  please  say  "Aye." 

(Upon  the  vote  being  taken  the  second  clause  of  Resolution 
No.  13  was  adopted). 

Chairman  Trueblood:  The  resolution  has  been  adopted. 
The  question  now  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  as  a 
whole. 

(Upon  a  vote  being  taken,  the  resolutions,  as  a  whole,  were 
adopted.) 

adjourned 


SPEECHES  AT  THE  BANQUET 
Friday   Evening,    May   5,   at   Seven   O'clock 
Eon.  Champ  Clark,  Toastmaster 

Mr.  Frank  N.  Hoen:  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  We  have  now 
reached  the  time  when  it  is  my  pleasure  to  call  this  session  of  the 
Peace  Congress  to  order,  that  we  may  hear  the  distinguished 
speakers  who  will  address  us. 

Before  proceeding  with  the  program,  the  usual  Maryland 
custom  is  to  offer  a  toast.  I  desire  to  offer,  therefore,  the  usual 
toast  to  the  President  of  the  United  States.  I  think  you  will 
agree  with  me  that  the  address  of  the  President  at  the  first  ses- 
sion of  this  Congress  will  perhaps  be  received  more  enthusiastically 
than  any  of  his  recent  addresses.  It  was  certainly  a  wonderful 
address  at  such  a  time.  I  therefore  will  ask  all  to  stand  and  drink 
to  the  health  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Hon.  William 
Howard  Taft. 

(A  standing  toast  was  then  drunk  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States.) 

Mr.  Hoen:  I  now  have  the  pleasure  and  honor  of  introducing 
the  Toastmaster  of  the  evening,  the  distinguished  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  the  Hon.  Champ  Clark,  of  Missouri. 

Hon.  Champ  Clark:  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  thank  the 
managers  of  this  Congress  for  making  me  toastmaster.  It  is  a 
great  honor.  The  chief  function  of  a  toastmaster  is  not  to  make 
a  speech  himself,  but  to  introduce  the  speechmakers,  and  it  is 
much  the  easier  part  of  the  program.  Introductions  ought  not 
to  be  long.  When  Max  O'Rell  was  lecturing  in  this  country  some 
years  ago,  a  president  of  a  society  in  some  town  in  which  he  was 
going  to  lecture  consumed  three-quarters  of  an  hour  in  introduc- 
ing him,  and  when  O'Rell  got  up  he  offered  a  resolution  of  thanks  to 

399 


400  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

the  chairman  for  the  speech  which  he  had  made  and  sat  down, 
and  I  always  thought  he  treated  him  right. 

I  am  the  president  or  chairman  or  presiding  officer  of  the  great- 
est debating  society  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  barring  none.  The 
healthiest  rule  in  that  house  on  the  subject  of  oratory  is  the  con- 
fining of  speeches  on  certain  occasions  to  a  five  minute  limit,  and 
the  best  speeches  ever  made  in  that  house  are  made  under  that 
five  minute  rule. 

My  good  friend,  David  B.  Henderson,  the  speaker  of  the  house 
at  one  time,  an  approved  soldier  himself,  who  lost  a  leg  at  Corinth, 
several  years  ago  began  a  speech  to  the  Grand  Army,  at  Indian- 
apolis, with  these  words:  ''War  is  my  theme,  and  I  hate  it!" 
All  sane  people  agree  in  that  sentiment.  The  vast  majority  of 
soldiers  who  have  fought  for  a  principle  from  a  sense  of  duty  join 
in  that  sentiment.  We  all  hail  this  Peace  Congress,  not  as  a  har- 
binger of  the  millennium,  but  as  the  prophecy  of  a  better  state  of 
affairs  than  has  existed  on  this  earth  since  Cain  slew  Abel. 

The  United  States  ought  to  lead  in  this  great  peace  movement. 
We  ought  to  lead  in  this  movement  because  of  our  happy  geo- 
graphical situation.  Defended  on  the  east  and  on  the  west  by 
two  great  seas;  with  neighbors  to  the  north  and  south  perfectly 
friendly  to  us;  with  our  immeasurable  resources;  with  our  vast 
population  constantly  growing  greater  and  vaster,  our  position 
is  impregnable  in  war.  We  have  nothing  to  fear  from  any  nation 
on  the  face  of  the  earth  in  a  war,  and  therefore  of  all  the  nations 
on  this  great  earth  we  are  in  the  best  position  to  lead  in  the  peace 
movement. 

Our  position  in  the  world  is — and  it  is  historical — friendly, 
peaceful  and  honest  with  all  the  nations,  with  entangling  alliances 
with  none.  We  have  no  disposition  to  interfere  with  anybody, 
and  no  desire  to  encroach  upon  the  territory  or  infringe  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  any  other  nation.  Our  desire  is  to  be  at  peace 
with  all  the  world. 

I  introduced  a  resolution  into  the  last  Congress  and  also  in 
this  one — and  the  chances  are  I  can  get  it  passed  more  easily 
in  this  Congress  than  in  the  last — to  find  out  the  cost  of  wars  in 
the  last  one  hundred  years.     And  the  more  I  study  about  it,  the 


CLARK  401 

more  difficult  I  know  it  is.  You  may  ascertain  approximately 
what  the  nations  of  the  earth  have  spent  in  dollars  and  cents — 
that  is  the  actual  expenditure  of  money — but  the  property  losses 
by  reason  of  war,  the  loss  of  life,  the  shedding  of  tears,  the  hin- 
drance of  progress,  no  mathematics  can  explain  and  no  mathema- 
tician can  solve. 

It  is  a  strange  thing,  and  those  who  have  studied  history  know 
it  full  well,  that  the  histories  of  the  world  are  nine-tenths  taken  up 
with  the  description  of  wars  between  men.  The  soldiers  have  the 
monuments  the  wideworld  over.  Go  to  Washington.  The  town 
is  full  of  equestrian  statues  to  soldiers,  and  I  give  it  as  my  opinion 
as  a  horseman,  and  one  raised  in  Kentucky  and  living  in  Mis- 
souri, and  representing  the  District  where  the  highest  priced  sad- 
dler that  the  world  ever  saw  was  raised,  that  every  bronze  horse 
in  the  City  of  Washington,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three, 
should  be  broken  up  for  old  junk.  But  it  is  the  soldiers  that  have 
the  monuments  in  Washington  as  in  every  other  capital  in  the 
world.  I  am  not  certain  that  there  are  statues  in  that  town  in 
public  places  to  more  than  three  or  four  statesmen,  that  is  where 
the  men  did  not  happen  to  be  both  statesmen  and  soldiers.  There 
is  one  to  Daniel  Webster  and  one  to  General  Garfield,  and  an 
exceedingly  poor  one  to  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  maybe  two  or 
three  others.  But  it  is  all  wrong.  Soldiers  are  necessary  in  their 
time  and  place.  They  discharge  the  duties  that  devolve  upon 
them,  but  I  say  that  it  is  a  crime  for  the  civilized  nations  of  the 
earth  to  be  cutting  each  others  throats  in  this  day  and  generation. 
I  am  happy  to  give  my  mite,  small  as  it  is,  to  contribute  it  to 
this  great  movement  for  universal  peace.  I  repeat  it  that  we 
ought  to  lead  in  this  movement,  resolutely,  constantly,  unflinch- 
ingly until  Tennyson's  gorgeous  vision  is  realized. 

When  the  war  drum  throbs  no  longer 

And  the  battle  flags  are  furled, 
In  the  Parliament  of  Man, 

The  Federation  of  the  World. 

I  am  rather  inclined  to  believe  that  when  the  final  account  is 
made  up,  Andrew  Carnegie  will  receive  more  praise  from  mankind 


402  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

for  the  ten  million  dollars  which  he  contributed  to  the  cause  of 
peace  than  he  will  for  the  entire  expenditure  of  the  large  remnant 
of  his  fortune. 

I  am  glad  that  President  Taft  and  the  administrative  authori- 
ties of  the  United  States  are  aiding  in  this  cause.  Congress  ought 
to  cooperate  with  the  administration  in  every  good  work,  and  the 
administration  ought  to  cooperate  with  Congress  in  every  good 
work.  The  thing  is  mutual.  It  is  not  one-sided,  and  we  ought 
to  persevere  in  this  matter,  remembering  and  being  encouraged 
by  John  Milton's  splendid  utterance,  "Peace  has  her  victories 
no  less  renowned  than  war."  And  my  judgment  of  the  matter  is, 
that  as  great  a  blessing  as  the  Panama  Canal  will  be  as  a  commer- 
cial artery,  its  greatest  blessing  will  be  that  it  will  bring  the  nations 
of  the  world  together  more  closely  and  make  them  better  friends 
and  make  wars  scarcer. 

I  said  I  was  not  going  to  speak  long,  and  I  am  not.  This  is 
an  historic  city.  Our  national  anthem  was  written  here.  Some 
right  lively  war  scenes  were  in  this  immediate  vicinity.  This  is 
called  the  "Monumental  City."  It  has  not  only  risen  from  its 
ashes  physically  in  recent  years,  after  your  great  fire,  but  it  is 
rising  otherwise.  Originally  this  was  the  great  convention  city 
of  the  United  States.  The  first  President  ever  nominated  in  a 
national  convention  was  nominated  here,  and  for  some  reason — 
I  don't  know  who  started  it  or  how  it  happened — but  gatherings  are 
coming  here  more  frequently  now  than  to  the  City  of  Washington, 
and  I  rejoice  at  it. 

The  greatest  problem  of  the  century  that  is  facing  us  is  the 
government  of  great  cities.  When  our  population  was  all  rural, 
government  was  easy.  Everybody  knew  everybody.  The 
problems  were  not  so  complex.  They  get  more  complex  every 
year  and  are  more  difficult  of  solution.  On  that  proper  solution 
of  those  problems  depends,  to  a  large  extent,  the  prosperity  and 
glory  of  the  Republic. 

It  is  a  great  thing  to  be  a  member  of  Congress  of  either  branch, 
and  it  is  a  great  thing  to  be  the  governor  of  a  State  or  the  mayor 
of  a  city,  and  I  now  take  pleasure  in  presenting  to  you  His  Honor, 
J.  Barry  Mahool,  the  mayor  of  this  city,  who  will  respond  to  the 
toast,  "The  City  of  Baltimore." 


MAHOOL  403 

Hon.  J.  Barry  Mahool:  Mr.  Toastmaster,  Ladies  and  Gen- 
tlemen :  I  am  sure  that  it  is  with  a  great  deal  of  personal  pleasure 
that  I  am  permitted  to  come  here  tonight  and  extend  a  most 
cordial  welcome  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  Baltimore. 

The  Speaker  has  well  said  that  the  municipal  problems  which 
confront  a  city  are  even  greater  than  those  which  confront  a  mem- 
ber of  congress.  The  fact  that  3I  per  cent  of  the  population  of 
this  entire  country  one  hundred  years  ago  lived  within  the  walls  of 
a  city  made  it  comparatively  simple  at  that  time  to  administer 
municipal  affairs.  But  at  the  present  time,  with  40  per  cent  of 
the  entire  population  of  the  United  States  living  and  elbowing 
each  other  in  these  great  aggregations  of  population  which  we  call 
cities,  it  taxes  the  ability  and  efforts  of  our  most  public  spirited 
citizens  to  enable  people  to  live  in  these  places  and  continue  to 
thriye  and  prosper.  And  as  mayor  of  a  city  which  has  done  much, 
I  think,  in  the  last  few  years  along  the  lines  of  progress  and  up- 
building in  municipal  affairs,  I  come  here  tonight  and  bid  you 
Godspeed  in  the  work  of  which  you  have  undertaken  in  this 
Peace  Congress.  I  am  sure  that  a  man  who  has  served  four  years 
in  the  mayor's  ofl&ce  is  quite  willing  for  peace  to  prevail  all  over 
the  earth. 

You,  my  friends,  I  am  sure  meet  with  the  same  thoughts  that 
we  all  meet  with,  the  same  things  that  we  meet  with  when  we  start 
to  do  a  great  thing,  just  as  when  we  started  out  a  few  years  ago 
to  rebuild  a  city  after  a  hundred  million  dollars  were  burned  up 
within  a  few  blocks  of  this  hotel,  when  we  meet  with  the  idea  that 
such  a  thing  could  not  be  accomplished,  and  just  as  we  hear  men 
say  today  that  the  time  will  never  come  when  men  all  over  the 
earth  will  live  together  in  peace  and  tranquillity. 

When  the  great  railroad  which  was  started  from  Baltimore,  was 
first  put  into  operation,  they  ran  a  race  with  an  old  gray  mare, 
and  the  people  said,  when  the  mare  beat  the  train,  that  it  "would 
never  amount  to  shucks,"  that  it  would  never  go,  that  it  would 
never  run.  There  are  lots  of  croakers  or  knockers  in  the  commu- 
nity, but  they  are  getting  fewer  all  the  time.  The  story  runs  that 
the  belt  came  off  of  the  fly  wheel  and  the  engine  stopped  and  the 
mare  came  in  ahead  of  the  railroad  train. 


404  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

When  they  started  the  great  electric  telegraph  between  Balti- 
more and  Washington,  and  the  message  was  sent,  "What  hath 
God  wrought, ' '  th^re  were  lots  of  people  who  were  urged  to  give 
their  support  to  that  movement,  but  they  said  that  it  could  never 
be,  that  it  was  impossible.  That  message  was  sent,  however,  and 
through  the  civilizing  influences  of  the  railroad  and  the  telegraph, 
the  people  of  the  world  have  been  brought  closer  together,  and  I 
believe  that  it  is  now  almost  impossible  for  two  civilized  nations 
to  come  to  war. 

I  am  glad  to  come  here  as  the  mayor  of  Baltimore,  after  having 
listened  to  the  many  splendid  speeches  which  were  delivered,  and 
I  can  tell  you  that  any  movement  which  starts  out  with  the  en- 
dorsement of  the  chief  executive  of  this  great  nation,  which  has 
the  endorsement  of  men  of  finance,  of  the  most  learned,  and  of  the 
greatest  statesmen  of  the  country,  must  succeed,  and  when  we 
see  what  God  hath  wrought  in  the  things  that  had  the  backing 
of  but  a  very  few  men  in  the  past,  I  say  then  we  can  look  forward 
to  that  great  result  to  which  all  the  world  looks,  eternal  peace. 

I  thank  you  most  cordially  for  coming  to  Baltimore.  I  am 
glad  our  distinguished  citizen,  Mr.  Theodore  Marburg,  has  had 
so  much  to  do  with  the  success  of  this  Congress.  I  am  sure  it  has 
inspired  the  hearts  and  minds  of  the  people  of  this  city  and  of  this 
country  to  better  and  nobler  things  in  the  future.  As  mayor,  I 
extend  to  you  a  most  cordial  welcome  on  behalf  of  our  city,  and 
I  trust  that  you  will  see  in  the  near  future  a  fruition  of  your  dreams, 
of  your  ideas,  your  hopes  and  ambitions.     I  thank  you. 

The  Toastmaster:  This  country  contains  about  one-seven- 
teenth of  the  people  on  the  globe,  and  yet  a  nation  as  great  as 
this  is  cannot  control  the  politics  or  the  policies  or  destiny  of  the 
world.  It  takes  cooperation,  and  this  is  preeminently  the  age 
of  cooperation. 

A  few  years  ago,  when  The  Hague  Court  was  established,  a 
great  many  people  poked  fun  at  it,  but  as  the  years  have  gone  by 
that  Court  has  grown  in  strength  and  popularity.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  it  has  already  prevented  several  minor  wars,  and  in  the 
days  to  come  it  will  prevent  a  great  many  more.     I  have  said  that 


d'estournelles  de  constant  405 

if  I  could  pick  the  thing  with  which  Colonel  Theodore  Roosevelt 
was  to  concern  himself  for  the  rest  of  his  life,  I  would  make  him 
the  perpetual  president  of  The  Hague  Peace  Tribunal.  It  would 
be  a  noble  close  to  a  phenomenal  career. 

We  have  with  us  tonight  a  distinguished  gentleman  who  has 
devoted  his  life  largely  to  this  principle  of  the  cooperation  of 
nations.  He  won  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize  in  1909.  He  was  Presi- 
dent of  the  International  Conciliation  Congress.  He  was  a  Dele- 
gate from  France  to  the  First  and  Second  Hague  Conferences. 
He  is  a  life  senator  of  France.  His  subject  is  "  Cooperation  of  the 
Nations."  I  have  the  pleasure  of  introducing  to  you  Senator 
Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant. 


COOPERATION  OF  THE  NATIONS 

BARON  d'estournelles  DE   CONSTANT 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  would  certainly,  like 
my  faithful  and  good  friend,  La  Fontaine,  prefer  speaking  French 
tonight.  I  think  really  it  would  be  much  better  if  we  could  ex- 
press to  you  all  that  we  feel,  all  that  we  have  to  say,  in  the  best 
shape  and  best  form  possible.  But  I  do  not  care  so  much  for  the 
shape  of  the  words.  I  know  now  that  you  understand  very  well 
and  support  this  feeling,  so  I  shall  do  my  best  to  express  to  you 
a  few  of  the  feelings  which  are  very  deep  in  my  heart.  First,  I 
want  to  express  my  admiration  and  my  gratitude  for  the  organ- 
ization of  this  splendid  Congress.  That  is  not  at  all  a  word  of 
flattery.  Having  so  few  words  to  use  I  should  not  use  them  for 
flattery  when  I  want  them  for  explaining.     It  is  not  at  all  flattery. 

I  find  here,  as  well  as  everywhere  in  the  United  States,  such  a 
fine  organization,  such  fine  elements  for  really  good  cooperation. 
Here,  for  instance,  in  this  Congress  you  hardly  can  imagine,  you 
Americans,  what  a  success  it  is  when  we  compare  it  to  what  the 
Peace  Congresses  generally  are  in  Europe,  although  they  are 
improving  a  great  deal;  but  here  the  most  ignorant  people  even 
can  understand  at  once  what  great  importance  you  attach  and 
give  to   these  manifestations.     For  instance,  this  banquet.     It 


4o6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

is  organized  not  only  in  perfection,  but  our  great,  fine,  devoted 
friend,  who  is  one  of  these  men  that  you  always  want  in  all  kinds 
of  work,  not  a  man  who  does  anything  for  show,  but  a  man  who 
really  does  for  everybody,  I  mean  Theodore  Marburg,  has  given 
time  and  thought  to  its  perfection.  I  say  not  only  that,  but  what 
I  admire  beside  the  good  will,  beside  the  devotion  of  a  man,  you 
find  the  support  of  almost  all  the  principal  forces  of  your  great 
Republic. 

This  banquet  is  presided  over  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  That  means  a  great  deal.  Your  meetings  have 
been  more  or  less  opened  by  the  most  eminent  contributors  which 
you  could  have,  such  as  that  of  President  Taft,  and  the  mayor 
of  your  great  city  of  Baltimore  has  expressed  himself  as  being  in 
sympathy,  and  has  expressed  the  sympathies  of  his  city  for  your 
work.  So,  I  do  not  see  what  is  missing  in  the  support  of  all  the 
forces  of  your  country  to  our  cause. 

But  perhaps  I  can  bring  you  more  than  these  feelings  of  con- 
gratulations and  thanks.  I  can  speak  of  my  visit  which  I  have 
made  to  your  country  and  which  I  just  finished  today.  This  is 
the  very  last  day,  not  of  my  journey,  but  of  the  long  tour  that  I 
made  all  over  the  United  States.  I  think  now,  that  I  am  one  of  the 
men  whoknowbest  about  public  opinion  in  the  United  States,  from 
the  mere  fact  that  I  have  seen  almost  everybody  in  all  your  great 
towns  and  States.  I  am  glad  to  see  here  tonight  so  many  of  the 
friends  from  the  States  that  I  had  the  great  luck  and  chance  of 
visiting. 

There  was  one  thing  that  struck  me  deeply.  I  went  almost 
everywhere.  I  went  to  New  York  and  Washington  and  Baltimore. 
I  went  from  Baltimore  to  New  Orleans,  to  Austin  and  to  the  Mex- 
ican frontier,  to  Arizona,  to  California,  to  Los  Angeles,  San  Fran- 
cisco, Oregon,  Portland,  Seattle,  Colorado — I  have  seen  Denver 
— then  from  Denver  I  went  to  your  splendid,  active,  extraordi- 
nary Middle  West,  which  is  already  so  startlingly  developed  in 
almost  fifty  years,  something  which  for  a  foreigner  to  see  is  almost 
a  miracle.  I  saw  all  that.  I  went  to  St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis 
and  Cincinnati  and  finally  to  Washington  and  here.  The  one  thing 
I  noticed,  the  one  thing  which  seems  to  me  so  striking,  is  that  not- 


d'estournelles  de  constant  407 

withstanding  the  great  variety  of  all  these  cities  and  States  facing 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  or  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  or  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  everywhere  there  is  a  difference  in 
nature  and  everywhere  you  find  differences  in  climate,  culture, 
in  everything,  still  in  every  town,  in  every  State  I  found  one 
feeling,  one  national  feeling,  uniting  all  these  different  states  to- 
gether, one  same  and  quite  definite  aspiration  for  peace,  against 
war  and  for  eternal  justice — against  war  not  because  they  are 
weak  people,  but  because  they  judge  it  exactly  as  we  do  in  France. 
We  are  always  and  will  be  always  glad  to  give  our  life  and  blood 
to  the  last  drop  in  fighting  for  a  good  cause,  for  liberty  or  justice; 
but  we  are  now  more  and  more,  just  as  you  are,  against  war,  be- 
cause we  understand  that  war  is  not  only  more  and  more  disgust- 
ing, but  that  it  only  leads  to  catastrophies,  that  war  is  as  bad  for 
the  victor  as  for  the  defeated. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  I  didn't  give  one  minute  from  my  time 
for  pleasure  or  social  entertainment,  because  I  wanted  to  speak 
to  the  people  of  all  kinds,  I  wanted  to  try  to  meet  objections  or 
contradictions.  I  did  not  try  to  escape  conversation.  Just  the 
reverse.  I  wanted  to  find  objections.  I  went  to  the  Mexican 
frontier.  I  went  to  the  California  State,  where  I  knew  they  spoke 
so  much  of  the  Japanese  inevitable  war.  Everywhere  I  thought 
I  might  find  difl&culty  I  went,  and  I  spoke  to  all  the  people  I  could. 
I  spoke  to  the  club  men,  to  the  preachers,  to  the  business  men,  to 
the  church  men  everywhere — I  spoke  to  thousands  of  people,  not 
leaving  out  the  women,  who  can  render  such  a  great  help  to  the 
cause  of  peace,  and  everywhere  I  found  only  one  will,  one  aspir- 
ation. Republicans  and  Democrats,  all  people  are  supporting 
this  one  policy,  the  policy  of  international  arbitration.  They 
all  understand  that.  Only  five  or  six  years  ago,  my  friends  re- 
member it,  this  word  ''arbitration"  was  not  so  well  understood. 
People  did  not  know  what  it  meant.  Now  they  all  understand, 
and  one  of  the  best  proofs  of  what  I  say  is  that  without  any  party 
lines,  the  Democrats  and  Republicans  both  speak  with  the  high- 
est gratitude  and  confidence  of  the  initiative  which  was  taken  by 
President  Taft  in  this  great  effort  to  make  a  treaty  for  obli- 
gatory arbitration. 


408  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

So  now,  my  dear  friends,  if  we  were  men  fond  of  having  a  rest, 
if  we  were  something  like  this  pacifist  whom  our  adversaries  are 
always  laughing  at,  if  we  were  not  men  who  wanted  to  give  all 
our  strength,  as  La  Fontaine  does,  and  as  many  others  do,  if  we 
were  not  ready  to  give  our  lives  to  our  cause,  then  it  seems  we  could 
now  have  a  rest.  But  no,  my  dear  sirs,  you  shall  have  no  rest. 
That  is  life.  That  is  the  duty,  the  greatness  of  a  cause.  We  shall 
not  have  a  rest,  because  as  long  as  ignorance  will  remain — and  it 
will  remain  a  long  time  in  life — we  will  have  to  educate  the  people. 
They  are  ready  and  they  are  pleased  to  be  educated,  but  still  they 
may  be  taken  by  surprise  every  day.  They  may  be  deceived. 
They  are  deceived  every  day.  They  are  deceived  by  people  who 
do  not  know  sometimes.  Sometimes  I  suppose  they  do  not  know 
that  they  are  deceiving.  We  have  to  follow  them  up  and  try  to 
contradict  the  people  who  try  to  deceive,  and  we  have  to  explain; 
and  I  assure  you  when  we  do  it  the  country  and  the  people  are 
very  grateful  and  will  be  very  grateful,  because  they  understand 
perfectly  well  where  the  truth  is  as  long  as  we  take  the  trouble  to 
explain  it. 

I  see  here,  just  as  in  France  or  Germany  or  Great  Britain,  many 
people,  perhaps  with  not  so  bad  intentions,  because  sometimes 
they  do  not  understand  what  they  are  doing,  but  they  spread 
pessimism  and  alarming  news.  Some  people  are  not  satisfied 
unless  they  find  something  startling  in  their  morning  newspaper. 
They  want  to  find  something  startling.  "We  are  perfectly 
happy,  so  what  is  the  use  of  having  a  newspaper  except  for  that." 
They  say  that  war  is  inevitable,  that  war  is  coming.  They  said 
that  La  Fontaine  said  that  war  was  coming.  That  was  very 
interesting,  and  they  said  that  de  Constant,  for  instance — be- 
cause I  read  it  myself — they  said  that  they  could  build  more 
dreadnoughts  because  Baron  de  Constant  said  that  war  with 
Great  Britain  and  Germany  was  sure  to  come  soon;  but  I  had 
said  just  the  reverse.  I  said  that  you  could  sleep  quietly  because 
there  was  no  danger,  but  they  said  that  I  said  to  take  care  because 
war  was  coming.  Of  course,  that  is  interesting,  because  I  did 
not  say  it. 

In  California  I  spoke  about  what  they  called  the  inevitable 


D  ESTOURNELLES   DE    CONSTANT  409 

Japanese  war  with  the  United  States,  and  I  want  to  tell  you  that 
I  found  it  was  all  a  dream  and  not  a  reality,  and  I  gave  some  ex- 
planation about  it,  and  then  I  read  in  a  paper — not  there  but  at 
some  other  place — "Baron  de  Constant  says  that  war  between 
Japan  and  the  United  States  is  inevitable."  Now  this  would  be 
discouraging  if  public  opinion  was  not  educated,  because  such 
news  is  wired  to  Germany  and  France  and  Great  Britain,  and 
then  what  do  they  say?  They  say  ''You  know  we  have  to  go  to 
expense  for  military  equipment  because  even  the  pacifist  is  speak- 
ing for  war  now." 

But  speaking  of  the  Japanese  question,  I  could  demonstrate 
with  the  evidence  given  to  me  by  all  your  people  that  it  is  not  pos- 
sible at  all.  There  is  no  possibility  of  a  war  between  Japan  and 
the  United  States,  unless  you  suppose  the  governments  concerned 
are  blind  and  all  the  other  governments  are  indifferent  and  the 
people  are  ignorant  and  stupid.  If  you  really  take  the  facts, 
though,  everything  is  against  it.  When  I  said  that  to  my  friends, 
they  said  that  it  was  thought  quite  impossible  for  the  United  States 
to  make  war  upon  Japan,  that  nobody  thought  of  the  United  States 
attacking  Japan.  But  what  else  did  they  say — and  we  took  it  in 
France  and  Europe  seriously — they  said,  "Everybody  knows  that 
there  are  plenty  of  Japanese  spies  in  all  the  universities  and  hotels, 
in  California  and  in  Colorado  and  everywhere"  and  all  these  Jap- 
anese spies  are  ready,  when  they  see  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  has  some  trouble  or  difficulty,  to  write  or  wire  at 
once  and  the  Japanese  government  sees  its  chance.  Of  course,  all 
these  people  that  talk  this  way  know  everything.  They  don't 
know  it,  but  they  are  sure  of  it,  which  is  worse.  They  say  they 
will  begin  by  seizing  the  Philippines,  which  is  as  easy  as  possible, 
and  then  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  then  after  that  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  Well,  I  found  something  still  better.  We  French  are 
imaginative,  and  I  said  that  they  would  not  stop  at  that  but  they 
would  perhaps  take  San  Francisco  and  make  of  that  a  Gibraltar, 
and  that  would  be  fine;  and  really  the  people  looked  as  though 
they  were  pleased  with  the  idea.  But  when  I  spoke  of  that  I 
asked  them  if  they  thought  of  where  they  could  find  the  neces- 
sary money  for  that  plan.     I  heard  Banker  Speyer  speak  of  a 


4IO  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

splendid  plan  to  do  away  with  war.  I  think  it  is  very  interesting 
and  fine;  but  of  course  all  these  people  are  dreamers  and  they 
don't  care  about  the  question  of  money.  The  danger  is  what  they 
care  for — ^it  is  only  the  Japanese  danger.  I  said,  "Very  welU 
suppose  they  can  do  all  that,  do  you  think  they  could  really  stop 
there?  Supposing  that  they  took  the  Philippines  and  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  and  all  the  Pacific  Ocean;  very  well,  but  the  same  moment 
they  attack  the  Philippine  Islands,  then  the  same  moment  they 
tread  on  other  possessions,  the  British  possession;  and  they 
threaten  the  Russian  possession  from  Vladivostock  and  the 
German  possessions,  and  the  Dutch  possessions  in  Java."  And 
they  talk  of  it  in  Australia,  this  "yellow  peril"  and  I  said  "Well, 
Japan  will  have  to  attack  Australia  too."  I  say  it  will  be  very 
hard  for  one  nation  to  do  all  that,  and  of  course  all  the  people 
laugh,  but  that  is  because  it  is  ridiculous.  I  wish  I  could  speak 
in  French  now.  I  wish  I  could  say  it  in  French.  I  should  like 
to  explain  just  exactly  what  it  is  that  I  find.  You  know  how  it 
is  when  boys  make  soap  bubbles.  They  do  it  in  France  and  I  see 
they  do  it  here  too.  In  a  few  seconds  it  bursts  by  itself  or  you 
can  break  it  with  your  finger.     So  it  is  really  nothing. 

In  my  country  I  can't  open  my  mouth  without  someone  saying 
something  about  the  masters  of  the  sea.  Now  the  Japanese  are 
perfectly  sane  people.  They  don't  dream  of  such  things.  Sup- 
pose they  did!  They  couldn't  do  it.  But  they  don't  want  any 
masters  of  the  sea.  The  Pacific  Ocean  any  more  than  any  other 
ocean  doesn't  belong  to  any  nation  any  more  than  the  sky, 
which  belongs  to  no  nation  but  only  to  aviation  and  the  air 
men. 

We  want  education,  I  should  say  daily  education.  We  have  to 
try  now  to  undo  what  has  been  done  sometimes  very  inefiiciently, 
sometimes  very  badly  through  ignorance  or  illwill.  We  have  to 
undo  all  that.  We  can  do  it  and  do  it  very  easily  because  the  facts 
speak  so  eloquently.  Only  in  the  last  ten  years  have  so  many 
good  things  been  done,  and  you  may  be  proud,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men, in  thinking  how  many  things  your  country  has  done  in  all 
this  progress.  And  when  my  honorable  colleague,  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  speaks  of  the  duty  of  America,  of 


D  ESTOURNELLES   DE   CONSTANT  411 

the  United  States,  of  taking  the  lead  in  this  movement,  I  say  it 
is  indeed  your  duty  as  it  is  your  interest.  It  is  your  interest,  be- 
cause you  are  a  great  country.  You  have  done  a  great  many 
things,  but  you  have  still  a  great  many  things  to  do.  I  have 
seen  all  your  country  and  I  know  many  of  the  things  you  have 
still  to  do.  You  have  not  a  dollar  or  an  hour  or  a  man  to  spare 
or  waste  for  war.  You  have  to  give  all  your  time,  all  your  money, 
all  your  people  and  the  natural  resources  of  your  country,  you 
need  all  of  your  forces,  for  facing  universal  competition.  They  are 
speaking  of  the  Japanese  danger  but  I  should  say  that  if  you 
enter  the  race  you  must  not  follow  our  mistakes — I  mean  of  the 
great  military  powers  in  Europe.  We  are  beginning  to  understand 
that  we  are  wrong  and  have  to  abandon  them,  and  if  you  just 
begin  now  to  start  these  mistakes,  you  know  who  will  be  the 
winner  of  the  race,  who  will  be  the  winner  of  the  fight?  I 
should  speak  more  of  the  Belgian  terror  or  the  Dutch  peril,  or 
the  Scandinavian  peril,  or  the  peril  of  all  the  nations  which 
seem  so  tiny,  so  modest,  because  having  no  military  expenses, 
they  can  give  all  their  efforts  for  the  development  of  their  nat- 
ural resources,  all  their  efforts  for  the  great  economic  struggle. 
That  is  the  real  necessity.  That  is  what  you  have  to  do.  That 
is  why  you  have  to  teach  the  people  to  understand  that  it  is 
to  your  interest  and  it  is  your  duty.  You  have  given  the  world 
a  good  example.  I  said  that  very  often.  You  did  a  signal  thing 
in  opening  The  Hague  Court  when  no  other  government  did  it. 
My  friend  La  Fontaine  knows  it  well  as  a  member  of  The  Hague 
Conference,  and  I  know  it  too,  because  we  not  only  suffered 
from  it;  but  we  were  deeply  humiliated,  my  colleagues  and  I, 
who  all  gave  the  best  that  we  had,  and  after  having  created  this 
Hague  Court,  this  institution  which  was  the  aspiration  of  all  the 
world  for  so  many  centuries,  no  government  would  believe  in  that 
institution,  no  government  panted  to  use  it,  to  try  it  and  show 
that  it  was  living.  It  was  your  government  first,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  that  gave  not  only  this  example  but 
this  lesson  to  the  others  in  sending  the  first  case  to  The  Hague 
Court.  This  was  the  beginning,  but  it  was  not  quite  enough. 
The  government  of  the  United  States  gave  the  first  case  and  it 


412  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

was  a  great  beginning,  a  kind  of  attestation  of  confidence.  But 
the  governments  refused  to  give  the  few  thousands  of  dollars 
necessary  to  buy  a  house  for  the  new  institution.  How  could 
the  people  believe  in  this  new  court,  when  she  had  no  house? 
Then  came  an  American,  which  is  very  interesting.  I  remem- 
ber very  well  that  I  was  more  and  more  distressed  by  this  stand 
of  the  governments,  when  I  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  at  my 
country  house  one  of  your  ambassadors,  General  Porter,  and  I 
said,  "Is  it  not  a  pity  to  see  this  great  thing  almost  stillborn, 
because  they  will  give  all  their  money  for  military  expenses  but 
nothing  for  The  Hague  Court."  I  said,  "It  is  almost  like  a 
good  young  girl  which  you  find  in  France" — of  course  I  mean 
in  France  only — "when  she  has  no  money  she  can  get  no  con- 
sideration or  credit.  Couldn't  we  find  something  like  an  Ameri- 
can uncle  for  her,  who  could  give  her  the  money,"  and  he  said 
to  me  laughing,  "Why  don't  you  write  to  Mr.  Carnegie?"  I 
said,  "I  don't  know  him."  "Well,"  he  said,  "I  will  give  you  a 
letter  of  introduction,"  and  he  did  so,  and  I  sent  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Carnegie  saying  that  I  heard  he  did  so  many  good  and  fine  things, 
and  I  thought  really  if  he  wanted  to  do  something  which  was  good 
that  he  should  give  something  toward  building  a  house  for  this 
poor  girl.  After  a  few  weeks  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Car- 
negie saying  he  had  the  same  idea  and  he  was  glad  to  tell  me  that 
he  had  given  money  enough  not  only  to  build  a  house,  but  a 
palace.  Oh,  my  dear  friends,  how  glad  I  was,  but  how  humili- 
ated I  was  afterwards  when  I  saw  that  the  government  was  so 
full  of  consideration  for  the  girl  after  she  had  the  money,  that 
is  the  Court,  I  mean.  Then  the  other  cases  came,  the  Casablanca 
case,  and  that  is  why  I  came  to  try  to  give  you  people  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  good  you  have  done  and  to  tell  you  how  much  you  can 
do  in  the  future.  The  people  here  have  understood  better  than 
anywhere  else  that  we  must  have  cooperation.  You  are  ready 
for  it. 

I  shall  go  back  to  my  country  and  other  countries  and  tell 
them  how  you  are  feeling,  how  unanimous  you  are,  and  I  am  sure 
the  people  of  all  the  world  will  give  you  thanks  for  the  confidence 
you  have  shown  and  for  what  you  have  done. 


LYNCH 


413 


Many  thanks  to  you,  my  good  friends,  and  many  thanks  to  your 
good  people  who  have  done  so  much  for  me  that  I  shall  never 
forget  the  hearty  welcome  and  hospitality  of  the  United  States. 

The  Toastmaster:  The  Baron  is  not  alone  in  having  been 
misrepresented  by  a  newspaper.     There  are  others. 

But  as  a  rule  they  tell  the  truth.  Sometimes  they  misrepresent 
through  ignorance  and  once  in  a  while  through  malice,  but  gen- 
erally they  are  right.  There  is  one  thing  I  want  to  emphasize, 
and  that  is  that  there  is  nothing  political  in  this  peace  movement. 
When  Thomas  Jefferson  delivered  his  first  inaugural,  he  said, 
"We  are  all  Federalists,  we  are  all  Republicans,"  and  if  he  were 
here  tonight,  he  would  say,  taking  into  consideration  the  changes 
in  the  parties,  "We  are  all  Republicans,  we  are  all  Democrats," 
and  this  is  as  much  Republican  as  it  is  Democratic  and  as  much 
Democratic  as  Republican.     It  is  American,  that's  what  it  is. 

While  politics  are  not  allowed  here,  and  I  would  not  violate 
the  proprieties,  I  will  say  this :  I  like  to  praise  a  Republican  when 
I  find  one  who  deserves  it,  and  it  doesn't  take  me  a  long  time, 
either.  My  judgment  is  that  up  to  the  present  time  President  Taft 
will  get  more  praise  for  his  arbitration  speech  than  anything  else. 

We  have  for  the  next  speaker,  the  pastor  of  the  Pilgrim  Church 
in  New  York  City,  the  editor  of  a  Christian  paper  and  the  author 
of  a  book  on  the  great  subject  of  Peace. 

I  have  the  pleasure  now  of  introducing  Rev.  Frederick  Lynch 
of  New  York  City. 

SOME  UNTABULATED  SIGNS  OF  WORLD  UNITY 

REV.  FREDERICK  LYNCH 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  enlarge  upon  some  significant  facts  of 
this  new  century,  namely,  the  sudden  and  prolific  production  of 
books  and  pamphlets  on  the  movement  for  international  unity, 
world  peace  and  international  law.  But  I  will  turn  to  what  is 
perhaps,  after  all,  the  surest  promise  of  the  federation  of  the  na- 
tions, the  unity  of  the  races,  the  brotherhood  of  man,  namely, 
those  subtle,  spiritual  awakenings  and  movements  of  this  century 


414  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

— movements  whose  motion  one  cannot  tabulate,  but  which  are 
the  most  potent  forces  for  the  new  world,  as  spiritual  and  ethical 
forces   are   always   greatest.      These   movements   are   very  pro- 
nounced.    They  show  the  mood,  the  temper,  the  trend  of  the 
century.     The  first  and  greatest  of  these  new  facts  is  this:  we  are 
at  last  passing  up  into  that  realm  of  ethics  where  we  are  seeing 
that  the  same  ethic  is  binding  upon  groups  of  people  that  con- 
trols and  determines  the  relations  of  individuals  to  each  other. 
r^The  trouble  has  been  that  we  have  been  living  under  two  standards 
\/  I    of  ethics — Christian  for  individuals,  pagan  for  groups,  commu- 
V^nities,   nations.     We   have   demanded   that  individuals   live   as 
Christians  towards  each  other,  but  corporations  and  nations  as 
/  pirates.     But  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  double  standard  of 
l^thics  in  the  kingdom  of  God.     That  which  is  right  for  a  man  is 
right  for  the  state;  that  which  is  wrong  for  a  man  to  do  is  wrong 
for  a  corporation  or  nation  to  do.     Taking  things  or  land  that  do 

tot  belong  to  us  is  just  as  much  stealing  when  done  by  a  nation 
s  when  done  by  a  man.     If  it  is  wrong  for  me  to  take  revenge, 
it  is  wrong  for  a  nation  to  take  revenge.    If  it  is  wrong  for  me  to 
settle  my  difficulties  on  the  street  with  my  fists,  it  is  wrong  for 
the  nations  to  settle  their  difficulties  on  the  seas  with  gunboats. 
Nations  are  under  the  same  law  of  charity  and  forgiveness  as 
lividuals  in  any  system  of  ethics  that  can  last.     The  law  of 
my  country  towards  Japan  is  the  law  that  governs  me  in  my 
relations  with  my  brother  in  my  town.     If  it  is  wrong  for  me  to 
kill  my  brother  on  the  streets  of  my  city,  it  is  just  as  wrong  for 
a  nation  to  destroy  a  brother  nation  in  this  beautiful  world. 
Both  the  church  and  the  nation  have  been  full  of  this  spurious, 
v^ double,   unchristian  morality.     It  has  been  largely  responsible 
lA^      >for  rotten,  thievish  business  methods  of  some  corporations  and 
jv    ^      \/^  insurance  companies,  for  the  corruption  in  civic  and  national 
^  ^  life,  as  well  as  for  the  unchristian  relationships  of  nations.     It  is 

passing  very  fast,  and  the  most  hopeful  augury  of  a  new  inter- 
nationalism is  this  arising  in  the  race  conscience  of  a  morality 
really  Christian  and  single,  in  which  communities  and  nations 
are  accountable  at  the  same  bar  of  righteousness  as  is  a  man. 


LYNCH 


415 


Another  movement  gathering  great  headway  in  our  century  is 
tl^  revival  of  the  social  gospel  in  the  church  and  in  the  world  of  \^ 
all^goodmen.  The  gospel  of  the  last  century  was  directed  to- 
wams  sa\ang  the  individual  out  of  the  evil  of  the  world,  and  it 
laid  great  stress  on  the  bliss  awaiting  the  saved  one  in  the  world 
to  come.  The  church  can  never  neglect  personal  religion,  for 
man's  individual  oneness  with  God  is  a  great  factor  in  his  life. 
But  the  church  is  now  seeing  that  its  final  object  is  not  so  much\ 
saving  one  man  out  of  a  corrupt  society  and  social  order  into/^^^-^ 
heaven  as  the  redeeming  of  the  very  order  itself,  so  that  the  will/ 
of  God  shall  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.  This  new,  social 
consciousness  is  giving  birth  to  a  great  revival  of  humaneness  and 
is  imparting  to  the  church  the  determination  to  build  the  king- 
dom of  God,  the  beautiful  city  of  God  in  the  earth.  Consequently, 
she  is  driving  out  every  evil  that  makes  the  kingdom  impossible 
and  degrades  God's  little  children.  A  great  campaign  against 
child  labor,  the  saloon,  corrupt  politics,  unjust  economic  condi- 
tions, the  exploitation  of  the  weak  and  the  foreigner,  against  all 
that  makes  the  kingdom  impossible  and  debases  men  has  begun. 
Hatred  between  races,  wars  between  nations,  are  the  worst  of  ^^>^ 
these  degrading  forces.  The  moral  damage  of  war  is  worse  than 
the  physical  suffering  it  brings,  as  Rev.  Walter  Walsh,  D.D.,  has 
shown  in  his  recent  remarkable  book.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War, 
Wars  destroy  the  Christian  nurture  of  centuries.  They  let  loose 
again  the  worst  lusts,  passions  and  hatreds  of  men.  They 
plunge  nations  back  again  into  paganism.  The  new  social  gospel 
is  already  attacking  it,  along  with  all  those  evils  that  make  the 
coming  of  the  Christ-spirit  into  the  social  fabric  impossible,  for 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  must  be  built  up  on  the  law  of  love  and  not 
that  of  force.  If  the  church  should  say  tomorrow,  "Wars  must 
stop;  arbitration  must  be  resorted  to,"  they  would  stop.  But 
the  whole  logic  of  her  present  thinking  will  make  her  say  it  before 
the  twentieth  century  is  half  gone. 

The  one  word  that  is  on  all  men's  lips  today  is  the  brotherhood 
of  man.  It  is  passing  up  out  of  the  world  of  sentiment  into  a 
working  gospel.  In  America  it  is  rapidly  becoming  a  fact  in 
spite  of  occasional  relapses.     It  is  seen  in  the  mingling  of  all  races 


41 6  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

/in  America.     Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale  used  to  call  the  United 
f    States  the  greatest  peace  society  in  existence.     He  had  in  mind  the 
forty-six  States  living  together  without  wars  between  each  other. 
Perhaps  he  also  had  in  mind  the  fact  that  fifty  once  hostile  races 
now  live,  house  to  house  in  friendship  and  peace.     What  efifect 
this  can  have  on  the  peace  of  the  world  has  been  lucidly  pointed 
out  in  Jane  Addams'  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace.     However  this  may 
be,  brotherhood: -of  "Xaan  is  attracting  more  response  in  our  day 
than  the  older  school  of  patriotism,  which  saw  no  good  outside 
its  own  border.     The  many  labor  organizations  and  the  social 
democracy  of  Europe,  with  all  their  shortcomings,  are  yet  a  grop- 
ing towards  brotherhood.     Democracy  is  coming  to  its  own  in 
lathis  century,  and  democracy,  in  its  ideals  at  least,  is  brotherhood — 
a  state  where  the  ruling  principle  is,  All  for  each  and  each  for  all. 
Democracy  and  war  are  incompatible,  as  this  century  will  prove. 
One  other  sign  of  the  coming  of  the  reign  of  law  in  this  century 
is,  to  some  minds,  the  most  convincing  of  all,  namely,  that  all 
our  thinking  today  is  gathering  about  the  principle  of  evolution, 
and  evolution  is  only  nature's  way  of  passing  from  brute  to  spirit. 
Jhis  law  has  never  failed  in  any  other  field  of  operation.     In 
r^     /^'^every  sphere  of  human  action  the  brute,  the  physical,  has  passed 
hi)  '^       v2^  ^P  i-i^to  the  spiritual  and  the  realm  of  moral  law.     One  instance 
^  'will  suffice:     Once  men  settled  all  disputes  by  fierce,  unregulated 

hand-to-hand  fights.     Then  this  single  combat  came  to  be  regu- 
lated.    This,  in  turn,  was  superseded  by  the  duel.     The  duel  is 
much  higher  than  a  fist  fight,  because  the  element  of  la^  comes  in. 
But  the  duel  was  outgrown.     Men  had  risen  to  courts,  and  as 
men  have  increased  in  virtue,  courts  are  not  used  so  much.     Men 
are  learning  to  forbear  and  forgive.  Now,  if  war  should  show  any 
signs  of  coming  under  the  same  principle,  what  sane  man  can 
believe  the  principle  will  break  down  here,  where  it  has  not  in  any 
other  case?     It  will  not.     It  cannot.     Evolution  does  not  break 
down!     It  is  God  operating,  and  when  God  begins,  he  finishes. 
!  But  war  has  come  under  the  principle.     It  has  gone  a  long  way 
;  under  it.     Once  wars  were  the  normal  state  of  society.     Now  all 
agree  they  are  abnormal  and  peace  is  normal.     Once  wars  were 
( continuous  and  peace  occasional.     Now  peace  is  continuous  and 


/ 
/ 


SEWALL 


417 


war  occasional.  The  occasions  are  growing  further  and  further 
apart  all  the  time.  Once  war  was  the  profession  of  all  able-bodied 
men,  except  the  priests.  In  the  United  States  peace  is  the  profes- 
sion of  everybody  and  soldiering  thought  less  and  less  of  as  a  trade. 
Once  war  was  unregulated;  now,  there  are  a  hundred  humane 
laws,  the  two  Hague  Conferences  having  added  many  new  ones 
to  those  which  had  already  gradually  grown  up  with  the  years. 
Once  nations  freely  made  wars  for  pillage  and  plunder.  Today 
no  nation  would  think  of  such  a  thing  or  dare  carry  it  out  if  she 
did.  A  war  today  must  at  least  have  the  semblance  of  rights 
defended  or  justice  sought  as  an  excuse.  Once  every  dispute  was 
settled  by  war.  Now  fully  one-third  of  international  disputes 
are  put  out  of  the  zone  where  war  is  possible  by  existing  arbitra- 
tion treaties.  And  he  who  reads  can  see  that  the  peace  talk  today 
is  at  least  holding  its  own,  and  gradually  displacing  the  war  talk. 
Shall  the  law  of  evolution  in  this  regard  stop  short  here,  let  us 
ask  again,  when  it  has  fulfilled  itself  in  every  other  spiritual  prin- 
ciple? Shall  God  fail  here  after  having  gone  so  wonderfully  far? 
Who  can  think  so,  especially  today,  when  some  think  they  even 
catch  glimpses  of  that  reign  of  law  that  is  to  supersede  war? 


^Wl, 


The  Toastmaster:  The  next  toast  is  ''Woman's  Part  in  the 
Promotion  of  Internationalism,"  It  might  have  been  entitled, 
"Woman's  Part  in  Every  Good  Work."  A  good  many  American 
women  have  contributed  to  internationalism  by  taking  foreign 
husbands.  This  topic  is  to  be  discussed  by  Mrs.  May  Wright 
Sewall  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  a  famous  American  woman. 

WOMAN'S  PART  IN  THE  PROMOTION  OF  INTER- 
NATIONALISM 

ABSTRACT 


MRS.  MAY  WRIGHT  SEWALL 

The  task  before  me  is  not  easy.  It  is  to  pack  the  contents  of 
a  full  wardrobe  trunk  into  a  diminutive  suitcase.  Were  it  pos- 
sible to  say  something  that  has  not  been  said  during  the  previous 


4l8  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

sessions  of  this  Congress,  in  which  successive  speakers  have  fol- 
lowed so  closely  upon  one  another,  that  only  the  last  in  each  day's 
procession  has  escaped  with  ungrazed  heels,  that  new  word  is 
what  I  should  wish  to  say.     But  as  more  than  all  has  already  been 
said,  I  can  only  hope  to  give  a  new  form  to  some  small  fragment. 
t        Although  I  appear  in  this  Congress  as  the  special  delegate  of 
A  the  National  Council  of  Women  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as 
I  the  Chairman  of  the  Peace  and  Arbitration  Committee  of  the 
1  International  Council  of  Women,  it  is  only  the  latter  body  that 
\l  shall  attempt  to  represent. 

^     What  is  the  International  Council  of  Women?     When  and 
where  was  it  formed?     What  is  its  object? 

It  was  founded  in  March,  1888,  in  the  city  of  Washington. 
It  is  composed  at  the  present  time  of  the  National  Councils  of 
Women  of  twenty-two  countries.  These  National  Councils  ag- 
gregate a  membership  estimated  at  between  six  and  seven  mil- 
lions of  women.  The  object  of  the  International  Council  as  first 
announced,  was  to  create  an  agency  through  which  women  of 
different  countries  might  become  acquainted  with  one  another, 
since  only  in  becoming  acquainted  did  it  seem  possible  to  replace 
ignorance  by  mutual  intelligence,  and  prejudice  by  reciprocal 
good   will. 

The  first  ten  years  of  the  Council's  life  were  spent  simply  in 
getting  acquainted,  and  in  finding  the  other  nations  who  wished 
to  become  acquainted  with  the  nations  that  had  founded  the 
Council,  and  with  one  another.  This  business  of  getting  ac- 
.quainted  had  attained  a  stage  which  enabled  the  Council  in  1899. 
when  its  second  quinquennial  meeting  was  held  in  London,  to 
adopt,  or  rather  to  begin  to  adopt,  lines  of  work. 

The  first  and  only  one  voted  at  that  time,  and  voted  unanimously 
by  the  representatives  of  the  ten  National  Councils  of  Women, 

then  constituting  the  International,  was  the_prom^tion^of_peace 

and  arbitration.  The  resolution  then  adopted  committed  the 
Council  to  working  for  the  establishment  of  peaceful  relations 
among  the  nations  throughout  the  world  everywhere,  and  by  every 
means  in  its  power.  This  broad,  inclusive  resolution  was  reaf- 
firmed by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  nineteen  councils  of  women, 


sewAll 


419 


constituting  the  International  at  the  time  ofjls  third  quinquen- 
nial, which  was  held  in  Berlin  in  ^c^^df^-"""""'^ 

At  the  fourth  quinquennial  reunion,  held  in  Toronto,  the  same 
resolution  was  reaffirmed  by  the  votes  of  the  representatives  of 
the  twenty-two  councils  then  and  now  in  the  International  Coun- 
cil. Since  1899,  beginning  even  before  the  quinquennial  of  that 
year,  the  Council  had,  through  its  Committee  on  Peace  and  Arbi- 
tration, attempted  to  promote  internationalism  by  all  friendly 
means;  by  annual  executive  meetings,  held  in  the  capitals  of  the 
different  countries  belonging  to  the  Council;  by  maintaining  head- 
quarters at  various  international  expositions;  with  most  success 
at  the  Columbian  Exposition  in  Chicago  in  1893,  the  exposition 
at  Paris  in  1900,  the  Pan-American  at  Buffalo  in  1901,  and  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  Exposition  at  St.  Louis  in  1904. 

The  Council  stands  pledged  to  the  removal  of  prejudice,  na- 
tional and  racial,  and  to  the  education  of  children,  youth  and  the 
general  public,  in  a  proper  estimate  of  what  the  different  nations 
have  successively  contributed  to  the  world's  wealth  and  joy. 

We  are  told  that  we  must  appeal  to  the  hard-headed  business 
man,  and  some  members  of  our  committee  give  an  almost  exclu- 
sive attention  to  the  discussion  of  war  and  peace  from  the  indus- 
trial and  economic  points  of  view. 

As  it  is  the  policy  of  the  International  Council  to  work  with  all 
the  agencies  already  organized  for  the  promotion  of  peace  in  the 
different  countries,  the  methods  vary,  according  to  the  judgment, 
the  ability,  and  taste  of  the  representative  of  each  of  the  National 
Councils,  and  according  to  the  local  conditions  which  they  meet 
in  the  countries  where  they  live.  But  in  all  these  countries  there 
are  mothers  and  nurseries,  and  one  part  of  our  work  is  to  remove 
from  the  nurseries  all  toys  that  bring  into  the  child's  mind  the 
thought  of  military  pomp  and  show,  of  warfare,  with  its  conten- 
tions and  its  glories. 

The  National  Council  of  our  own  country  in  1895  began  to 
attempt  to  modify  and  improve  the  character  of  the  histories 
taught  in  our  schools.  We  are  still  working  in  all  countries,  to" 
endeavor  to  reduce  the  arrogance  and  excessive  esteem  of  school 
children  for  their  own  land,  and  to  increase  their  appreciation  of 
the  qualities  of  all  other  lands. 


420  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

My  own  feeling  is  that  in  the  United  States  the  two  most  press- 
ing needs  are:  two  books;  one  a  school  history  which  can  be  stud- 
ied with  equal  satisfaction  by  children  in  all  sections  of  the  United 
States.  The  theory  that  what  is  nearest  must  be  first  known  by 
the  child,  has  been  so  exaggerated  in  working  it  out,  that  the  local 
map  of  the  municipality  or  of  the  country  township  has  been  so 
large,  and  so  much  time  has  been  spent  in  teaching  every  detail 
connected  with  it,  that  it  is  possible  that  the  child,  seeing  a  map 
covering  an  entire  page  of  its  geography  devoted  to  his  town,  and 
all  of  Europe  crowded  into  another  page,  shall  get  wrong  ideas  of 
their  relative  importance. 

We  also  need  in  our  country  a  book  that  shall  teach  the  story  of 
our  industrial  development,  in  connection  with  the  story  of  the 
successive  tides  of  immigration,  through  which  alone  this  develop- 
ment has  come  about. 

It  is  most  inconsistent,  and  to  a  very  large  degree  futile,  for  us 
to  meet  in  peace  congresses  here  and  discuss  with  some  degree  of 
respect  the  great  nations,  and  do  nothing  to  abate  the  mutual 
ignorance  and  consequent  mutual  dislike,  not  to  say  hatred,  of  the 
representatives  of  the  different  races  in  the  different  cities  in  which 
we  live.  I  sometimes- hear  peace  workers  deploring  the  admix- 
ture of  so  much  sentiment  with  our  peace  work. 

Why  decry  sentiment?  Sentiment  is  not  only  much  more 
t0  universal,  because  much  more  spontaneous  than  sound  judgment 
^^-^  ^  and  trained  reason,  but  it  is  infinitely  more  potent.  I  wish  to 
increase  sentiment;  especially  the  sentiments  that  come  only  as 
the  product  of  training  the  qualities  of  appreciation,  power  for 
admiration,  for  recognition  and  for  gratitude. 

To  a  large  degree  this  seems  to  me  woman's  part  of  the  work, 
but  women  are  good  organizers.  There  is  probably  no  merely 
philanthropic  society  of  men  in  the  world  better  organized  or 
more  efficiently  conducted  than  the  Women's  Christian  Temper- 
ance Union,  of  which  I  agi  not  a  member,  and  therefore  can 
mention  it  with  no  personal  vanity. 

The  organizations  that  compose  the  National  Council  of  Women 
of  the  United  States  include  large  bodies,  thoroughly  organized, 
local  groups  being  brought  into  county,  county  into  State,  State 


0 


LA   FONTAINE 


421 


into  national  organizations.  There  are  societies  for  mutual  pro- 
tection, for  industrial  advancement,  including  from  thirty  thou- 
sand to  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  members  in  our  National 
Council,  which  in  their  protective  philanthropic  work,  collect  and 
expend  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  annually.  The  ability 
that  women  have  already  shown  in  organization  should,  from  my 
point  of  view,  be  made  use  of  by  the  peace  societies  of  our  own  coun- 
try, who  have  the  means  with  which  to  carry  on  organizations. 
Our  council  work  for  peace  and  arbitration  has  always  been  done 
at  the  expense  of  the  individuals  conducting  it.  So  long  as  this 
continues  it  must,  of  course,  be  very  inadequate,  because  the 
business  of  getting  acquainted  with  people  who  live  at  long  dis- 
tances from  one  another,  is  one  involving  the  exchange  of  frequent 
visits  and  still  more  frequent  correspondence.  The  appropria-  \ 
tion  per  annum,  made  to  the  committee  of  which  I  am  chairman,  * 
is  thirty  shillings!  I  should  be  loath  to  confess  this  humiliating 
fact,  were  women  the  purse  holders  of  the  world.  I  hope  that  by 
mentioning  it  here  some  of  the  foundations  now  having  millions 
at  their  command,  may  see  in  the  International  Council  an  agency, 
which  wisely  used,  would  be  a  most  able  auxiliary  in  the  execu- 
tion of  their  own  purposes. 


^.^ 


L 


The  Toastmaster:  The  last  toast  on  the  program  is  "Inter- 
nationalism as  a  Science."  The  name  of  La  Fontaine  is  famous 
in  both  hemispheres.  It  is  especially  dear  to  every  boy  who  ever 
tried  to  learn  French.  This  toast  will  be  responded  to  by  Sen- 
ator Henri  La  Fontaine,  of  Belgium. 


INTERNATIONALISM  AS  A  SCIENCE 

IfENRI   LA   FONTAINE 

Internationalism  as  a  science?  Science  is  a  method  by  which 
the  causes  and  the  effects  of  kindred  facts  are  discovered  and  deter- 
mined. The  facts  we  call  internationalism  happened  about  half 
a  century  ago.  More  and  more  since  1840,  the  word  "Interna- 
tionalism" is  applied  to  gatherings,  organizations,  institutions.     It 


422  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

was  tried  to  find  scientifically  the  origin  of  this  movemeiit  and 
circumstances  by  which  it  was  furthered. 

Transportation  has  been  the  great  and  powerful  factor:  steam 
and  electricity  were  the  magicians,  and  railroads,  steamers, 
automobiles,  telegraphs  and  telephones  were  their  tools.  Trans- 
portation became  rapid,  secure,  cheap:  letters,  commodities, 
persons  in  growing  numbers  traveled  over  the  earth.  Travel 
became  a  need  and  a  pleasure. 

Men  of  all  races,  religions,  languages  were  obliged  to  intermix, 
their  interests  became  international.  Societies  and  bureaus, 
conferences  and  congresses  were  founded  to  discuss  these  material 
and  moral  interests. 

Curiously,  the  first  governmental  conventions  had  for  their 
aim  the  improvement  of  postal,  telegraphic,  land  and  maritime 
transportation  and  the  improvement  of  our  geodetic  knowledge 
of  the  earth. 

Since,  in  all  the  domains  of  human  culture,  congresses  were 
held:  more  than  two  thousand  until  the  end  of  1910;  more  than 
eight  hundred  during  the  last  decade,  and  one  hundred  and  thirty 
four  in  1910.  There  exist  more  than  three  hundred  international 
permanent  institutions. 

What  should  now  be  done?  The  conclusion  is  obvious:  improve, 
keep  on  improving  the  means  of  transportation;  shorten  more 
and  more  distances  on  land  and  on  sea,  render  them  as  instan- 
taneous as  possible,  as  it  was  done  for  wireless  telegraphy  and  as 
the  aeroplane  will  perhaps  do  it  in  the  near  future;  bring  men 
close  to  men!  Men  who  know  one  another  are  intended  to  love 
one  another. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  us  render  mternationalism  more  con- 
scious. The  most  men  engaged  in  international  organizations 
ignore  that  other  men  are  engaged  in  similar  organizations  to 
realize  similar  aims  of  international  understanding.  In  the  com- 
mittees of  these  international  institutions,  each  country's  dele- 
gates are,  of  course,  the  cleverest  men  in  the  various  branches 
of  knowledge  and  activity:  they  are  truly  the  upper  ten  thousand. 
To  bring  these  men  together  was  the  aim  of  the  Central  office  of 
International  Associations  which  was  created  at  Brussels  in  1907, 


LA   FONTAINE 


423 


and  which  convoked  in  1910  the  first  World's  Congress  of  Inter- 
national Associations :  one  hundred  and  thirty  six  associations  sent 
delegates  and  more  than  four  hundred  members  were  present. 
The  reports  made  and  the  resolutions  adopted  were  of  the  highest 
value.  Truly  it  can  be  said  that  the  sessions  of  this  Congress 
constitute  the  intellectual  parliament  of  men,  the  great  consul- 
tative body  of  mankind. 

The  first  session  was,  unfortunately,  quite  European.  Its 
second  session  ought  to  be  mainly  American.  It  should  take  plaee 
on  America  soil.  It  is  a  necessary  condition  of  progress  that  the 
best  men  of  the  new  world  should  come  in  closer  touch  with  the 
best  men  of  the  Old  World. 

Emigration,  perhaps  more  than  war,  has  deprived  the  old,  his- 
toric countries  of  their  most  energetic  and  fittest  sons,  to  build 
the  progressive  and  wealthy  people  you  are  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic.  You  are,  for  us  Europeans,  the  beloved  brotherland. 
Do  not  forget  that  Europe  is  always  and  will  still  remain  for  you 
the  beloved  Motherland.  Europe  is  now  for  the  New  World  what 
Greece  was  for  Europe.  Europe  has  liberated  Greece;  America 
has  to  liberate  Europe  from  its  burdens,  its  prejudices,  its  hatreds. 
It  is  your  duty,  it  is  your  highest  duty  to  reconcile  outside  your 
borders  the  peoples  you  have  reconciled  within  your  borders. 

But  to  reconcile  the  peoples,  tribunals,  parliaments  and  codes 
are  not  the  most  effective  means.  Not  even  the  exchange  of 
commodities  and  persons  are  sufficient  factors.  It  is  the  inter- 
course of  ideas,  the  same  intellectual  needs,  the  same  ideals  which 
unite  men  more  than  all  other  ties. 

We  have  all — we  should  all  have  what  I  would  call  our  elec- 
tive international  fatherlands:  lawyers,  physicians,  astronomers, 
all  over  the  world,  are  more  attracted  one  by  another  than  they 
are  attracted  by  their  own  countrymen.  All  these  international 
fatherlands  have  now  their  own  parliaments,  their  international 
congresses.  In  these  congresses,  it  is  needful  that  men  of  all 
countries  should  attend  as  delegates  of  their  compatriots  engaged 
in  the  same  studies,  researches,  professions  or  industries.  In  such 
gatherings,  true  brotherhood  is  fostered.  Indeed  international 
congresses  and  international  associations  are  all  peace  congresses 
and  peace  societies. 


424  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Now,  you  can  understand  the  greatness  and  the  importance  of 
the  world's  congresses  of  international  associations.  Now  you 
are  aware  of  the  necessity  to  organize  its  second  session  on  Ameri- 
can soil.  For  indeed  the  American  people  is  at  present  the  true 
international  people;  it  is  the  elected  people  which  alone  can  fur- 
ther internationalism  and  transform  all  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth 
into  a  family  of  nations — a  brotherhood  of  men — an  international 
people. 


EIGHTH  SESSION 

Saturday  Morning,  May  6,  at  Ten  O'clock 

Hon.  John  Hayes  Hammond,  Presiding  Officer 

Chairman  Hammond  :  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  Mr.  Marburg 
does  not  wish  to  take  up  any  time  in  introducing  the  chairman 
today.  He  told  me  to  start  right  in,  and  my  remarks  will  be 
brief. 

The  topic  is  ''The  Interest  which  Business  Men  have  in  the 
Peace  Movement."     Business  men  have  an  interest,  both  humane 
and  pecuniary,  in  the  peace  movement,  but  nevertheless  I  believe,..^^ 
that  the  great  majority  of  business  men  do  not  favor  disarmament  ^ 
or  even  a  reduction  in  armament  on  the  part  of  the  nations  to     / 
which  they  belong,  unless  accompanied  by  similar  action  on  the    / 
part  of  the  other  governments  of  the  world. 

Indeed,  I  believe  on  the  contrary  that  the  average  business 
man  advocates  the  increase  of  armament  so  far  as  it  is  essential 
to  the  defense  of  his  country.  The  business  man  believes  that 
he  does  not  evince  a  warlike  spirit  in  this  attitude,  but  is  merely 
taking  what  he  regards,  from  a  business  point  of  view,  as  ordi^ 
nary  precautions.  The  constant  aim  of  men  to  conduct  a  busi< 
ness,  in  whatever  line  they  may  be  engaged,  is  to  obtain  the  mini^ 
mum  cost  by  the  elimination  of  unnecessary  operating  expenses, 
and  therefore  business  men  regard  war  as  a  waste  not  only  of  life 
but  of  the  revenues  of  a  nation.  They  see  that  while  war  imposes 
onerous  and  unnecessary  burdens  on  a  nation  there  is  but  little 
change  made  in  the  relative  strength  of  the  powers.  Business 
men  cannot  reconcile  the  altruistic  endeavors  of  the  present  gen- 
eration to  conserve  the  natural  resources  of  the  country  for  the 
use  of  succeeding  generations  with  the  present  great  debt  which 
is  being  piled  up  as  a  burden  for  posterity  because  of  militarism. 

42s 


426  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE   CONGRESS 

Business  men  recognize  the  interdependence  of  the  nations  of  the 
world,  that  the  prosperity  of  a  foreign  nation  develops  in  their 
markets  the  sale  of  the  products  of  other  nations,  while  impover- 
ished treasuries  and  the  condition  of  their  people  practically  close 
those  markets  to  foreign  exploitation.  Business  men  recognize 
the  advantage  in  foreign  trade  of  establishing  amity  among  na- 
tions, and  therefore  are  heartily  in  sympathy  with  the  efforts  of 
President  Taft  and  Secretary  Knox  to  establish  a  permanent 
tribunal  for  the  judicial  settlement  of  international  disputes. 
Commercial  relations  between  countries,  especially  when  such 
relations  are  intimate  and  extensive,  they  believe  make  for  peace 
and  are  not,  as  sometimes  charged  by  opponents  of  the  dollar 
diplomacy,  provocative  of  war. 

Business  men  are,  as  I  have  said,  strenuous  advocates  of  at- 
taining economical  results.  They  abjure  wasted  energy  or  wasted 
revenues.  They  see  what  can  be  realized  through  reclamation 
enterprises  in  agriculture,  through  the  improvement  and  the  ex- 
tension of  the  navigability  of  our  rivers  and  the  building  of  a 
great  mercantile  marine.  They  see  the  amelioration  of  the  con- 
ditions that  might  be  secured  for  the  community  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  eleemosynary  institutions  and  in  the  provision  of  an  old 
age  pension  system  through  the  diversion  of  the  present  profligate 
expenditure  of  money  for  armed  peace  into  these  more  profit- 
able channels  of  industry  and  philanthropy.  While  unfortu- 
nately the  peace  men  of  the  country  leave  to  others  the  educa- 
tional work  in  connection  with  this  great  peace  movement — and 
in  this  I  must  admit  they  are  remiss  in  the  discharge  of  their 
civic  duties — I  am  confident  that  when  practicable  measures  are 
submitted  they  will  zealously  co-operate  with  you  self  sacrificing, 
indefatigable  advocates  of  international  peace.  They  appre- 
ciate your  efforts  and  they  congratulate  you  and  mankind  upon 
the  results  already  achieved.  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  intro- 
ducing Mr.  John  Ball  Osborne,  the  chief  of  the  bureau  of  trade 
relations  of  the  Department  of  State. 


OSBORNE  427 

HOW  COMMERCE  PROMOTES  PEACE 

JOHN   BALL   OSBORNE 

My  topic  of  "How  Commerce  Promotes  Peace"  might  logically 
be  reversed  to  read  "How  Peace  Promotes  Commerce,"  for  com- 
merce is  completely  dependent  upon  peace.  The  timidity  of 
capital  is  proverbial;  the  mere  suggestion  of  business  disturb- 
ances frightens  it  into  hiding-places  from  which  it  can  be  coaxed 
only  when  it  is  convinced  that  the  danger  is  past.  International 
commerce,  representing  as  it  does  today  the  largest  investment 
of  capital  in  the  world,  with  an  approximate  annual  valuation 
of  thirteen  and  a  half  billion  dollars  ($13,500,000,000),  is  extremely 
sensitive  to  whatever  influences  encourage  or  discourage  capital. 
So  long  as  peace  prevails  commerce  flourishes  and  grows  apace, 
registering  in  its  development  the  growth  of  the  wealth  and  pros- 
perity of  the  trading  countries;  but  the  moment  that  rumors  of 
coming  war  circulate  commerce  begins  to  seek  new  channels 
where  it  will  be  least  exposed  to  attack,  and,  with  the  outbreak 
of  hostilities,  it  dwindles  rapidly.  No  matter  how  extensive 
and  powerful  the  naval  and  military  establishments  may  be 
which  offer  their  protection,  commerce  is  never  sufficiently  re- 
assured to  thrive  while  hostilities  last.  Thus  it  is  that  peace  is 
vitally  necessary  to  commerce. 

Modern  international  commerce  is  very  unlike  that  of  earlier 
times.  The  student  of  history,  in  considering  the  influence  of 
commerce  on  peace  among  nations,  is  apt  to  draw  illustrations 
from  the  past  where  commerce  has  apparently  furnished  the  prov- 
ocation for  war.  This  was  particularly  true  under  the  old  policy 
of  colonial  conquest  and  colonization  pursued  for  several  centuries 
by  the  leading  European  nations;  at  first  by  Spain  and  Portugal 
and  later  by  England  and  France.  Under  this  predatory  system 
of  commerce  distant  colonies,  acquired  by  discovery  or  conquest, 
were  exploited  mercilessly  and  their  resources  drained  with  the 
sole  purpose  of  increasing  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  mother 
country,  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  the  colonial  possessions. 
Naturally  the  struggle  for  commercial  supremacy  based  on  such 
a  selfish  system  resulted  in  a  series  of  bloody  and  exhausting  wars. 


428  THIRD   AMERICAN  PEACE    CONGRESS 

But  today  there  are  no  new  fields  for  colonial  conquest;  nor  are 
there  any  extensive  territories  that  remain  unexplored.  Prac- 
tically the  entire  world  is  partitioned  and  the  boundaries  of  the 
various  political  entities  are  well  established  and  recognized  by 
all  civilized  powers.  Moreover,  the  spirit  of  conquest  is  no  longer 
rampant;  but  has  given  way  to  the  spirit  of  forbearance  and 
mutual  conciliation.  Under  these  conditions  commerce  has 
become  an  eminently  peaceful  pursuit,  mutually  beneficial  to  the 
nations  engaged  therein.  In  fact,  international  commerce  is 
the  paramount  power  in  the  civilized  world,  and  it  furnishes  the 
subject-matter  of  most  of  the  questions  that  require  consideration 
in  the  foreign  relations  of  the  various  governments.  Commercial 
diplomacy,  therefore,  has  taken  the  place  of  the  old  political 
diplomacy,  which  means  that  the  influences  that  make  for  peace 
are  in  control  in  the  Foreign  Ofiices  of  the  world. 

Modern  commerce  rests  fairly  and  squarely  upon  the  broad 
and  equitable  principles  of  reciprocity.  Consequently,  when  we 
consider  commerce  as  an  agency  in  promoting  peace  we  must 
look  beyond  the  selfish  viewpoint  and  narrow  horizon  of  the  old 
mercantilists  or  perhaps  of  even  the  modern  ultra-protectionists 
and  consider  the  movement  of  imports  as  well  as  of  exports  in 
our  trade  relations  with  foreign  countries,  for  it  is  the  principle 
of  mutuality  of  trade  interests  that  constitutes  the  best  safeguard 
for  the  preservation  of  peace  among  trading  nations. 

By  this  reasoning  we  arrive  at  the  basic  proposition  that  the 
closer  the  commercial  ties  the  better  the  outlook  for  permanent 
peace.  It  is  obvious,  I  think,  that  the  closer  and  more  numerous 
the  ties  created  between  two  nations  by  commercial  relationship, 
the  greater  will  be  the  reluctance  on  the  part  of  either  to  begin  a 
war  against  the  other.  These  commercial  ties  make  the  damages 
possible  by  war  so  much  greater  than  any  gains  derivable  from 
it  that  the  love  of  peace  and  the  horror  of  war  are  both  intensified, 
and  thus  expanding  commerce  furnishes  an  increasing  security 
against  war. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  take  note  of  some  of  the  various  com- 
mercial ties  which  bind  modern  nations  in  a  community  of  inter- 
est and  a  state  of  interdependence.     Such  a  study  of  trade  rela- 


OSBORNE 


429 


tions  should  include  more  than  the  movement  of  imports  and 
exports  of  merchandise,  although  this  is  of  course  the  largest 
item  in  the  equation  of  international  indebtedness.  It  should 
take  account  also  of  the  navigation  movement;  the  international 
railway  traflSc;  cable  and  telegraphic  communication  between 
nations;  the  financial  investments  by  citizens  of  one  country  in 
another  country;  the  returns  from  these  investments  flowing 
from  the  debtor  country  to  the  creditor  country;  the  remittances 
of  money  made  by  immigrants  to  families  and  friends  in  the  father- 
land, and  numerous  minor  elements  which  enter  into  the  general 
business  relations  between  nations. 

What  we  may  term  extraterritorial  investments  of  capital  con- 
stitute one  of  the  most  important  phases  of  the  business  relations 
between  modern  nations.  Although  primarily  classifiable  under 
the  head  of  finance,  these  interests  are  closely  linked  to  commerce, 
for  the  investment  of  foreign  capital  usually  promotes  commerce 
between  the  lending  and  the  borrowing  country,  particularly 
as  regards  the  supply  of  machinery  and  other  materials  required 
in  the  industrial  enterprises  for  which  the  foreign  capital  is  em- 
ployed. An  eminent  economist  has  said  that  **a  cosmopolitan 
loan  fund  exists  which  runs  everywhere  as  it  is  wanted,  and  as 
the  rate  of  interest  tempts  it."  Everyone  knows,  however,  that 
money  is  too  cautious  to  run  into  any  foreign  country  unless  peace- 
ful conditions  prevail  there  and  are  likely  to  continue.  The  for- 
eign investments  of  capital  among  the  nations  reach  a  gigantic 
total,  probably  in  the  neighborhood  of  $40,000,000,000,  of  which 
Great  Britain  is  represented  by  at  least  $15,000,000,000;  Germany 
and  France  each  by  $8,000,000,000;  and  the  United  States  by 
$1,750,000,000,  of  which  at  least  $750,000,000  are  placed  in 
Mexico  and  $300,000,000  in  Canada. 

The  international  exhibitions,  which  are  held  at  frequent  inter- 
vals in  all  the  leading  countries  of  the  world,  are  another  effective 
means  of  extending  international  commerce  and,  at  the  same  time, 
promoting  the  cause  of  peace.  Take  for  example  the  International 
Exposition  at  Turin  which  is  now  in  progress.  Our  Congress 
appropriated  the  sum  of  $130,000,  which  has  enabled  the  United 
States  to  be  officially  represented  with  a  creditable  building  of  its 


43©  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

own.  The  industrial  exhibits  by  American  citizens  at  Turin 
will  surely  lead  to  a  gratifying  extension  of  the  sales  of  American 
products  in  that  part  of  the  world  and,  what  is  far  more  important 
the  already  friendly  relations  between  the  two  nations  will  become 
even  more  cordial  than  hitherto,  for  the  participation  of  the  United 
States  is  highly  appreciated  by  the  Italian  government  and  people. 
The  numerous  international  congresses  that  are  held  in  various 
countries  each  year,  exercise  the  same  salutary  influence  for  peace. 
They  bring  together  leaders  of  thought  and  action  in  many  coun- 
tries and  send  them  away  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  mutual  concil- 
iation and  with  a  better  understanding  respecting  the  viewpoints 
of  the  different  nationalities  represented  at  the  congress.  There 
were  no  less  than  twenty  international  congresses  held  at  Brus- 
sels in  1910  in  connection  with  the  International  Exposition.  The 
.  moral  atmosphere  of  some  of  these  international  congresses  often 
foreshadows,  perhaps  faintly  but  yet  unmistakably,  a  universal 
brotherhood  of  man.  I  participated  in  such  a  gathering  at  Lon- 
don last  summer — the  International  Congress  of  Chambers  of 
Commerce  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  London  Chamber  of 
Commerce.  It  was  attended  by  450  delegates  representing  every 
commercial  power  of  any  consequence  in  the  world.  Great 
Britain  and  her  colonies  sent  representatives  from  58  commercial 
bodies;  Germany  from  17;  France  from  16;  Austria  from  12;  and 

Csb  on.  The  American  delegation  at  London  brought  forward 
for  consideration  the  proposal  of  Secretary  of  State  Knox  for  the 
establishment  of  a  permanent  court  of  arbitral  justice  for  the 
settlement  of  all  disputes  between  nations.  This  most  important 
proposition  will  undoubtedly  be  the  subject  of  favorable  action 
by  the  International  Congress  of  Chambers  of  Commerce  to  be 
held   at   Boston  in    1912. 

Another  influence  that  is  calculated  to  contribute  to  the  cause 
of  peace  relates  to  the  increasing  tourist  movement  between  coun- 
tries, favored  by  the  improvement  of  the  facilities  for  traveling. 
This  movement  is  rapidly  breaking  down  the  barriers  that  sep- 
arate the  different  nations  and  the  result  is  better  trade  relations 
and  closer  international  friendships.  In  recent  years  there  have 
been  several  instances  where  large  parties  of  the  business  men  of 


2« 


OSBORNE 


431 


one  country  have  made  a  systematic  tour  of  the  commercial  and 
industrial  centers  of  foreign  countries  with  which  they  were  en- 
gaged in  trade.  A  party  of  100  business  men  from  various  parts 
of  Germany  made  an  excursion  of  this  kind  to  Turkey  in  1908. 
This  example  was  followed  by  a  party  of  150  Roumanian  business 
men.  In  1909  a  Turkish  commercial  delegation  of  245  persons, 
representing  the  various  branches  of  commerce  in  the  leading 
cities  of  Turkey,  visited  the  principal  commercial  and  manufactur- 
ing centers  of  Austria-Hungary.  It  is  reported  that  large  orders 
were  placed  as  a  result  of  the  visit.  In  1908  a  party  of  American 
business  men,  delegates  from  chambers  of  commerce  on  the 
Pacific  Coast,  visited  Japan  and  were  handsomely  entertained  by 
the  Japanese  Chambers  of  Commerce.  A  return  visit  to  the 
United  States  was  made  a  year  or  so  ago  by  members  of  the  Jap- 
anese commercial  bodies.  This  exchange  of  visits  by  representa- 
tive business  men  engaged  in  manufacturing  for  the  commerce 
between  the  two  countries  has  already  been  productive  of  good 
results  in  cementing  the  friendship  between  the  United  States 
and  Japan.  In  the  latter  part  of  1910  representatives  of  several 
Chambers  of  Commerce  in  the  Pacific  Coast  States  made  a  tour 
of  China  and  were  everywhere  accorded  a  warm  welcome.  They 
are  now  making  plans  for  the  return  visit  which  leading  business 
men  of  China  expect  to  make  to  the  United  States  this  summer. 
This  exchange  of  visits  will  undoubtedly  result  in  increased  trade 
and  more  cordial  international  relations.  The  Boston  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  always  progressive  and  always  on  the  right  side  of 
every  great  moral  question,  is  now  making  arrangements  for  a 
visit  to  European  countries  by  a  party  of  100  American  business 
men.  The  double  purpose  of  the  trip  is  to  bring  about  closer 
industrial  and  commercial  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  European  countries  and  to  extend  ofiicial  invitations,  on 
behalf  of  the  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce,  to  European  Cham- 
bers of  Commerce  to  attend  the  International  Congress  of  Cham- 
bers of  Commerce  which  will  be  held  in  Boston  in  191 2.  Every- 
one will  admit  that  whoever  goes  on  a  business  tour  of  this  kind 
goes  on  a  mission  that  contributes  directly  to  the  cause  of  inter- 
national  peace. 


432  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  principle  that  intimate  commercial  relations  are  an  effec- 
tive guarantee  of  peace  is  well  illustrated  by  our  trade  relations 
with  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  France,  the  three  best  custom- 
ers of  the  United  States  in  Europe.  Notwithstanding  the  com- 
paratively limited  area  of  the  United  Kingdom  the  total  trade  of 
the  United  States  with  that  country  amounted  last  year  to  more 
than  $776,000,000,  or  40  per  cent  of  our  total  trade  with  Europe 
and  about  24  per  cent  of  that  with  the  entire  world.  Of  this 
vast  amount  our  imports  represented  $271,000,000,  or  just  about 
one-third  of  our  total  imports  from  Europe,  while  our  exports  were 
in  excess  of  $5oo,ooo,ooo,or  about  45  per  cent  of  our  total  exports 
to  Europe. 

As  regards  Germany,  our  total  trade  was  in  the  neighborhood 
of  $450,000,000,  of  which  Germany's  imports  of  American  prod- 
ucts represented  $300,000,000.  Our  total  trade  with  France 
amounted  last  year  to  $250,000,000,  of  which  our  imports  were 
somewhat  in  excess  of  our  exports. 

But,  as  I  have  already  said,  in  order  to  obtain  the  true  inter- 
national perspective,  we  must  look  beyond  the  exchange  of  com- 
modities, great  as  it  is.  Mr.  George  Paish,  Editor  of  the  Statist 
has  recently  estimated  that  the  fixed  investments  of  foreign 
capital  in  the  United  States  reach  a  total  of  $6,000,000,000,  of 
which  Great  Britain  has  furnished  $3,500,000,000;  Germany 
$1,000,000,000,  and  France  $500,000,000.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  fixed  investments  of  American  capital  in  England,  Germany, 
and  France,  are  relatively  small.  Another  important  consider- 
ation is  that  American  tourists  spend  annually  in  Europe,  par- 
ticularly in  the  three  countries  mentioned,  enormous  sums  of 
money,  often  estimated  as  high  as  $200,000,000. 

The  great  mutual  interdependence  between  the  United  States 
and  the  powers  above  mentioned  is  revealed  by  a  study  of  the 
statistics  of  the  commercial  movement.  England  requires  our 
cattle,  wheat  flour  and  other  breadstuffs,  meat  products,  raw 
cotton,  copper,  refined  oil  and  unmanufactured  tobacco.  We 
need  British  chemicals,  colonial  India  rubber  and  diamonds,  tin, 
raw  wool,  certain  classes  of  cutlery  and  machinery,  and  certain 
grades  of  cotton  and  woolen  textiles,  to  supplement  our  own  pro- 
duction. 


OSBORNE  433 

Germany  is  vitally  dependent  upon  our  raw  cotton  and  copper, 
and  to  a  large  extent  on  our  breadstufifs,  lard,  refined  oil,  and  un- 
manufactured tobacco.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  absolutely 
dependent  on  Germany  for  potash  as  a  fertilizer  required  in  our 
agriculture  to  restore  to  the  soil  the  properties  that  have  been 
taken  from  it.  We  require  her  colonial  rubber  and  we  find  Ger- 
many an  excellent  source  from  which  to  supplement  our  require- 
ments in  cotton  knit  goods,  laces,  and  toys. 

France  leans  heavily  on  the  United  States  for  raw  cotton,  cop- 
per, refined  oil,  and  to  some  extent  for  agricultural  implements. 
Reciprocally,  we  are  dependent  upon  France  for  many  articles 
of  high  luxury,  such  as  art  works,  laces  and  embroideries,  silks, 
and  champagne. 

An  endless  procession  of  vessels  is  employed  to  carry  this  vast 
commerce  to  and  fro  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  producers  in  each  country  are  dependent  for  their 
livelihood  and  the  support  of  their  families  upon  the  uninterrupt- 
ed continuance  of  this  flourishing  commerce. 

The  prosperity  of  the  United  Kingdom,  Germany,  and  France, 
is  our  prosperity.  Anything  that  cripples  their  purchasing  power 
must  inevitably  react  adversely  on  our  selling  power  and  indus- 
trial welfare.  Similarly,  whatever  cripples  their  productive 
agencies  must  react  unfavorably  on  the  interests  of  the  American 
consumers.  Industrial  depression,  financial  disturbance,  and 
popular  distress  with  any  one  of  them  is  sure  to  be  reflected, 
sooner  or  later,  in  this  country,  and  vice  versa,  as  was  demonstrated 
abundantly  three  or  four  years  ago  when  the  financial  crisis  in 
the  United  States  had  its  reflex  action  in  Europe.  These  simple 
economic  truths,  predicated  on  the  solidarities  of  commerce,  show 
how  desirable  it  is  that  the  spirit  of  mutual  conciliation  should 
prevail  in  international  relations. 

Chairman  Hammond:  I  now  take  pleasure  in  introducing 
Captain  Charles  C.  Yates,  of  the  United  States  Coast  and  Geo- 
detic Survey. 


434  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE   GEOGRAPHIC   DELIM- 
ITATION OF  INTERNATIONAL  BOUNDARIES 

CHARLES   YATES 
PRELIMINARY   REMARK 

For  twenty-four  hours,  after  I  was  informed  that  I  was  to 
present  my  subject  at  this  meeting  of  your  Congress,  and  after 
your  Executive  Secretary  had  drawn  in  a  long  breath  as  a  fitting 
climax  to  the  effort  of  writing  down  the  somewhat  ponderous 
title  of  my  discussion,  my  mental  machinery  was  engaged  in  an 
endeavor  to  manufacture,  what  might  appear  to  you,  a  respect- 
able subterfuge  for  connecting  my  subject  with  the  topic  of  busi- 
ness which,  according  to  the  program,  is  the  theme  of  the  dis- 
cussions of  this  session. 

But  being  an  engineer  and  not  a  lawyer,  nothing  would  come 
forth  from  my  mental  factory  except  the  axiomatic  expressive 
expression  that  "business  is  business."  Which  means,  if  it 
means  anything,  that  business  is  business. 

But  in  the  twenty-fifth  hour,  my  long-sought  subterfuge  came 
into  my  mind,  and  I  now  present  it  for  what  it  is  worth. 

If  business  is  business,  under  what  conditions  does  business 
cease  to  be  business?  And  when  we  answer  this  question,  we 
find  that  one  of  those  conditions  always  exists  when  business 
reaches  an  international  boundary  line,  especially,  if  its  geo- 
graphic delimitation  is  marked,  as  is  that  of  our  own  country,  by  a 
great  tariff  wall.  And  you  all  know,  that  this  wall  presents  an 
insurmountable  obstacle  to  you  business  men  when  you  attempt 
to  extend  your  business  into  foreign  realms,  either  going  or  com- 
ing, particularly  the  latter. 

And  having  thus  logically  established  a  character  for  my  theme 
that  makes  it  appropriate  to  this  occasion,  I  will  now  take  up  the 
real  subject  of  my  discussion. 


YATES  435 

INTRODUCTION 

This  brief  discussion  of  the  importance  of  the  geographic  delim- 
itation of  international  boundaries,  as  a  factor  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  peace,  is  presented  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  ''geo- 
graphic surveyor,"  who  feels  that  the  subject  could  have  been 
better  put  before  you  by  others  in  the  Service  to  which  he  belongs; 
the  notable  example  being  the  Honorable  Otto  H.  Tittmann, 
Superintendent  of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey,  who  is  also  the 
representative  of  our  country  on  the  Commission  now  engaged  on 
the  demarcation  of  the  boundary  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States. 

PAST   HISTORY 

It  is  thought  that  the  meaning  and  importance  of  our  theme  in 
relation  to  peace,  may  be  made  evident  without  going  into  the 
history  of  the  causes  of  past  wars,  and  near  wars,  except  in  so  far 
as  it  is  covered  by  a  brief  mention  of  that  still  vivid  incident  of 
the  Venezuelan  boundary  controversy. 

President  Cleveland  in  speaking  of  the  end  of  the  Venezuelan 
boundary  controversy,  has  said,  "the  determination  of  the 
boundary  between  these  two  countries  has  (now)  been  fixed — 
perhaps  in  strict  accord  with  justice — but  in  all  events  finally  and 
irrevocably." 

DEDUCTIONS 

And  this  quotation  expresses  the  whole  aim  and  object  of  this 
discussion,  namely,  the  calling  of  attention  to  the  great  impor- 
tance of  final  and  incontestible  geographic  information  in  rela- 
tion to  international  boundaries,  whether  this  information  be 
obtained  prior  to  the  beginning  of  such  a  controversy,  and  thus 
forestall  a  possible  war  as  is  our  hope  for  the  future,  or  whether, 
as  so  often  has  been  the  case  in  the  past,  it  marks  the  end  of  a  war 
where  might,  instead  of  right,  is  the  determining  factor  in  the 
establishing  the  boundary  line. 


436  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

FUTURE    HISTORY 

To  dwell  further  on  the  lessons  of  the  past  in  relation  to  our 
subject,  would  be  to  state  what  is  already  obvious;  besides  it  is 
the  future  in  which  we,  of  the  peace  movement,  are  particularly 
interested. 

To  obtain  a  very  convincing  impression  of  the  dangers  to  future 
peace  which  now  lie  hidden  in  boundary  disputes,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  cast  our  mind's  eye  over  the  maps  of  Asia,  Africa,  and 
South  America  and  then  pick  out  many  a  boundary  which  may 
occupy  an  evil  place  in  the  future  history  of  the  world,  as  the 
cause  of  a  war. 

And  if  we  select  for  purposes  of  illustration,  the  great  Chinese 
Empire,  we  find,  that  not  only  do  her  practically  unmarked  and 
geographically  undefined  boundaries,  extend  over  the  tremendous 
length  of  more  than  eight  thousand  miles,  but  that  also,  she  has 
for  her  frontier  neighbors  the  Asiatic  possessions  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  British,  the  French,  the  Germans,  the  Portuguese, 
the  Russians,  and  the  Japanese. 

Speaking  parenthetically,  but  with  all  seriousness,  it  would 
appear  from  this  last  statement,  that  the  possibilities  of  China 
for  war  with  the  various  countries  of  Europe  would  furnish  these 
great  powers  an  excellent  future  opportunity  of  demonstrating 
their  claim,  that  a  great  army  and  a  great  navy  are  the  best 
guarantees  of  peace.  And  it  would  also  appear  that  it  would 
furnish  us,  of  the  peace  movement,  a  great  opportunity  of  demon- 
strating the  sincerity  of  our  professions,  by  directing  a  part  of  our 
energies  towards  the  elimination  of  those  boundary  disputes, 
which  are  likely  to  furnish  the  excuses  for  these  potential  wars 
which  not  only  threaten  the  peace  of  China,  but  also  the  peace  of 
the  nations  who  are  neighbors  on  the  frontiers  of  that  empire. 

SUGGESTIONS 

To  dwell  further  on  the  subject  of  future  wars  that  may  be 
caused  by  boundary  disputes,  would  be  again  to  state  what  is 
already  obvious. 


YATES  437 

And  this  directs  our  discussion  to  its  next  and  final  stage,  which 
relates  to  the  possibilities  for  constructive  work  that  would  make 
for  peace  by  providing  means  for  just  and  incontestible  geo- 
graphic determinations  of  international  boundaries. 

Knowing  the  exact  object  which  it  is  desired  to  obtain,  many 
different  methods  of  procedure  for  accomplishing  the  result 
may  be  suggested  to  many  different  minds. 

But  from  my  point  of  view,  as  an  individual  and  not  as  an  official 
of  the  government,  the  most  feasible  suggestion  is  that  of  the 
establishment  of  an  official  International  Geographic  Institution 
which  shall  have  for  one  of  its  main  functions  the  gathering  and 
compilation  of  authoritative  geographic  information  relating  to 
international  boundaries. 

As  just  indicated,  the  work  of  such  an  Institute  would  not  be 
devoted  entirely  to  those  things  which  relate  immediately  to 
war  and  peace. 

And  consequently,  our  project  would  have  the  very  practical 
advantage  of  gaining  support  from  various  national  geographic 
bureaus  which  can  not  help  recognizing  the  value  of  such  an  insti- 
tution. 

But  however  tempting  it  may  be  to  me  as  a  geographer,  to 
discuss  its  other  functions,  it  would  be  out  of  place  to  interject 
here  more  than  a  general  statement  on  this  point. 

This  International  Geographic  Institute,  besides  its  boundary 
duties,  would  have  other  practical  functions,  such  as  providing 
for  systematic  geographic  work,  relating  particularly  to  things 
that  can  be  done  most  economically  and  efficiently  by  interna- 
tional  cooperation. 

These  might  include  for  example,  the  charting  of  the  interna- 
tional waters  of  the  high  seas,  and  also  the  interchange  of  other 
navigational  charts  between  the  governments  of  the  world,  thus 
avoiding  the  great  waste  of  overlapping  energy  and  expense  that 
now  exists  in  this  respect. 

As  it  is  now,  with  the  very  notable  exception  of  the  international 
committee  engaged  on  the  construction  of  a  map  of  the  world 
on  a  scale  of  one  part  in  one  million,  the  world  is  dependent  for 
international  geographic  information  on  the  splendid,  but  unsys- 


438  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

tematic  efforts  of  nations,  geographic  societies,  and  individuals, 
who  generously  place  the  results  of  their  geographic  labors  at  the 
disposal  of  all  who  can  read  and  understand  that  truly  peaceful 
and  truly  great  international  language  spoken  by  maps  and  charts. 

RUFUS    CHOATE    ON   BOUNDARY   DISPUTES 

This  ends  the  discussion  of  my  subject  as  originally  planned, 
but  as  of  necessity  it  has  been  rather  technical,  I  can  not  resist 
the  temptation  of  illustrating  how  it  so  often  happens  that 
boundaries  are  the  cause  of  quarrels,  by  recounting  an  incident 
which  was  connected  with  a  boundary  dispute  between  two  states 
of  New  England. 

The  great  lawyer,  Rufus  Choate,  represented  one  side  of  the 
question,  and  in  his  argument  he  referred  to  the  elusive  and  un- 
satisfactory character  of  the  original  description  of  the  boundary 
in  the  following  scornful  language: 

''A  boundary  line  between  two  sovereign  states  described  by 
a  couple  of  stones  near  a  pond  and  a  buttonwood  sapling  in  a  vil- 
lage! Why,  the  commissioners  might  as  well  have  defined  it  as 
starting  from  a  bluejay,  thence  to  a  swarm  of  bees  in  hiving  time, 
and  thence  to  five  hundred  foxes  with  firebrands  tied  to  their 
tails." 

CONCLUSION 

As  a  practical  engineer,  whose  training  and  experience  have 
taught  him  to  direct  his  energies  towards  obtaiaing  those  concrete 
results  which  can  be  accomplished  in  the  present,  I  wish  to  say 
that  I  believe  that  this  thing  which  I  have  proposed  to  you  can 
be  done.  And  when  it  is  done,  I  believe  it  can  be  pointed  out  by 
us,  of  the  Baltimore  Peace  Congress,  as  another  one  of  those  steps 
which,  according  to  the  words  of  warning  of  President  Taft  spoken 
to  this  Congress,  must  mark  the  progress  of  all  practical  peace 
movements. 

Chairman  Hammond:  I  may  tell  you  a  little  discussion  that 
I  had  on  the  subject  of  the  armament  of  China  a  few  years  ago 
with  the  late   Chinese  ambassador,  the  Hon.   Wu  Ting  Fang. 


LEDOUX  439 

After  telling  me  of  the  large  sums  which  China  contemplated 
spending  in  the  development  of  her  army  and  navy,  I  said,  "That 
is  truly  deplorable."  We  Western  nations  regard  it  as  money 
wasted,  and  from  a  selfish  point  of  view  wish  that  it  could  be  ob- 
viated. If  China  could  spend  the  money  in  the  development  of 
her  natural  resources  and  trade,  she  would  open  great  markets 
of  the  world  in  which  all  Western  nations  would  participate." 
He  said,  "That  is  quite  true."  Then  I  said,  "Why  not,  following 
the  example  of  the  relation  of  Switzerland  to  the  powers  of  Europe, 
why  not  reverse  the  position  and  have  the  great  nations  of  the 
world  protect  China  and  obviate  the  necessity  of  her  spending 
all  this  money  for  this  insensate  armament,  because  she  will  be 
a  great  power  in  this  way  and  will  threaten  the  nations."  His 
answer  was,  "That  is  good  policy,  good  diplomacy  and  good  poli- 
tics; but  could  we  trust  you  Western  nations?"  I  believe  before 
long  that  with  such  meetings  as  this  we  could  substantiate  our 
claim  that  the  great  nations  could  be  trusted  and  allow  China 
and  the  other  nations  yet  in  the  process  of  civilization  to  become 
a  part  of  our  great  commercial  development. 

I  now  have  the  pleasure  to  introduce  the  next  speaker,  Mr.  U. 
J.  Ledoux: 

THE  BUSINESS   MAN  IN  WORLD  POLITICS 

ABSTRACT 
U.   J.    LEDOUX 

Opening  with  the  statement  that  if  the  commercial  and  indus- 
trial men  would  say  the  word,  and  do  some  of  the  work,  there 
would  be  no  more  wars,  and  fully  agreeing  with  President  Taft 
that  what  is  most  needed  in  the  Peace  movement  is  better  organ- 
ization, Mr.  Ledoux,  an  ex- American  consul  to  Canada,  France  and 
Austria,  in  charge  of  the  Department  of  Commercial  Associations 
of  the  World  Peace  Foundation  of  Boston,  said  that  over  a  year 
of  professional  study  of  internal  conditions,  both  here  and  in 
Europe,  had  convinced  him  that  what  was  most  needed  was  the 
cooperation  of  commercial  and  industrial  men  in  the  application 


440  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  more  scientific  methods  of  study,  organization  and  general 
work — in  short,  a  Taylor  system  of  efficiency  engineering. 

The  speaker  said  that  he  made  the  statement  advisedly  and 
without  trembling — even  in  the  presence  of  the  Chairman,  one 
of  the  most  efficient  engineers  in  his  line  the  world  had  ever 
known,  Mr.  John  Hays  Hammond. 

To  him  the  purely  sentimentalistic  peace  movement  was  an 
immense  dove,  all  wings  and  no  feet,  which  voraciously  snapped 
at  passing  multi-colored  butterfly-resolutions  and  then  contentedly 
preened  itself  in  the  hot-air  currents  of  its  own  preachlets  and 
talklets. 

But  the  dove  was  being  brought  closer  to  earth  by  such  business 
men  as  Mr.  Edwin  Ginn  and  Andrew  Carnegie,  and,  as  announced 
by  them  and  their  lieutenants,  feet  were  being  grafted  on  the 
dear  old  bird.  He  was  especially  pleased  at  the  tentative  plans 
outlined  at  the  Congress  by  Messrs.  Ginn,  Scott,  and  La  Fon- 
taine, which  showed  that  we  were  measurably  near  the  general 
application  of  efficiency  engineering  to  the  whole  peace  problems, 
to  which  solution  the  constructive  and  administrative  ability  of 
the  commercial  and  industrial  elements  were  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance. 

Requested  to  also  represent  the  World  Federation  League,  at 
the  Congress,  he  cited  the  group  of  mainly  business  men,  who 
were  instrumental  in  the  unanimous  passage  by  Congress  of  the 
Resolution  authorizing  a  Peace  Commission  as  one  of  the  best 
examples  of  what  could  be  done  by  that  strata  of  world  society. 

Mr.  Ledoux  opened  his  address  with  a  happy  quotation  that 
"If  men  would  permit  their  minds,  like  their  children,  to  be  as- 
sociated freely  together — if  they  could  agree  to  meet  one  another 
with  smiles  and  frankness  instead  of  suspicion  and  defiance,  the 
common  stock  of  wisdom  and  of  happiness  would  be  centupled. 
Probably  those  very  men  who  hate  each  other  most  and  whose 
best  husbandry  is  to  sow  briars  and  thistles  in  each  other's  path, 
would,  if  they  had  met  and  conversed  familiarly,  have  been  ardent 
and  inseparable  friends." 

He  applauded  at  the  organizing  ability  and  good  sense  of  the 
promoters  of  the  Congress,  which  had  brought  together  the  rep- 


LEDOUX 


441 


resentatives  of  so  many  races,  creeds,  and  ideas,  at  the  common 
communion  table  of  pacifism.  For,  as  stated  by  a  distinguished 
orator  of  the  previous  evening.  Senator  La  Fontaine,  tribunals, 
parliaments  and  codes  are  not  the  most  effective  means  to  recon- 
cile people.  Not  even  the  interchange  of  commodities  and  per- 
sons are  sufficient  factors.  It  is  the  intercourse  of  ideas,  the  same 
intellectual  needs,  the  same  ideals,  which,  more  than  any  other 
ties,  unite  men. 

In  a  general  survey  of  the  progress  of  humanity,  the  speaker 
showed  that  from  the  appearance  of  man  on  earth,  the  tendencies 
have  continually  been  in  an  ascendent  line:  the  federation  of  man- 
kind. By  stages,  has  man  evolved  world  organization  from  the 
establishment  of  family  ties  to  those  of  tribes,  clans,  hordes, 
provinces  and  states,  to  end,  thanks  to  alliance  between  provin- 
ces and  states,  into  the  creation  of  great  nations,  and  in  federa- 
tions of  nations,  such  as  the  British  Empire,  the  United  States, 
the  German  and  Austrian  Empire  and  the  Pan-American   Union. 

Probably  more  than  a  century  ago,  man  was  of  the  village,  with- 
in which  was  confined  his  wants  and  passions.  The  customs  were 
local,  the  moneys  varied  in  types  and  values,  the  roads  were 
bristling  with  tolls  and  the  stranger  considered  an  unknown 
enemy  or  nearly  so:     Man  was  of  the  village. 

But  gradually  was  a  national  spirit  evolved  through  political, 
social  and  commercial  necessity  and  laws,  moneys  and  customs 
made  uniform  and  the  tolls  abolished:     Man  was  of  the  nation. 

Steam,  electricity  and  a  thousand  other  inventions  have  bound 
man  to  humanity  with  indissoluble  ties  of  mutual  interests. 

These  are  the  ties  which  can  evolve  a  proper  spirit  of  national- 
ism which,  without  shirking  national  and  imperial  duties,  will 
assume  a  certain  share  of  humanity's  international  responsibility. 

This  means  strong,  independent  nations  united  through  a 
proper  spirit  of  brotherhood,  united  in  one  effort,  the  happiness 
of  mankind. 

The  world  was  slowly  but  surely  becoming  divided  into  strata 
of  interest  instead  of  into  races  and  creeds,  and  the  one  most 
pregnant  of  hope  for  the  Peace  of  the  world  was  certainly  that  of 
commerce. 


442  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

With  proper  organization,  business  men  have  been  able  to 
secure  for  the  world  peaceful,  systematic  and  rapid  commercial 
organization  through  Chambers  of  Commerce,  Boards  of  Trade, 
Merchants'  Clubs,  Manufacturers'  Associations,  etc.,  they  could 
certainly  secure  for  themselves  and  the  world  a  relief  from  the 
heavy  cost  of  international  disorganization. 

The  speaker  showed  that  though  we  may  be  far  in  advance  of 
Europe  as  regards  business  systems  and  the  combination  of  private 
and  corporate  interests  for  both  public  and  private  advantages, 
we  are  far  from  being  as  advanced  as  Europe  in  commercial  asso- 
ciations for  the  protection  of  mutual  interests  and  the  advance- 
ment of  the  public  welfare. 

Britain,  Germany,  Austria,  Belgium,  Italy,  Switzerland,  etc., 
not  only  have  strong  commercial  associations  that  protect  the 
local  interests  of  merchants,  but  also  have  very  strong  federations 
of  Chambers  of  Commerce,  which  are  generally  consulted  by  the 
commercial  and  industrial  departments  of  the  Governments  on 
matters  within  their  sphere. 

For  instance,  in  Austria,  the  Chambers  are  entitled  to  four  mem- 
bers in  Parliament.  The  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  Berlin,  Ham- 
burg, Bremen,  St.  Petersburg,  Vienna,  Copenhagen,  The  Hague, 
Brussels,  etc.,  not  only  control,  the  Bourses;  but,  in  most  cases, 
are  invested  with  most  extraordinary  and  practical  rights  of 
commercial  oJfl&cial  supervision,  such  as  the  Bourse  industrial, 
commercial,  vocational  schools,  building  and  control  of  public 
docks,  the  building  and  control,  in  certain  cases,  such  as  Havre 
and  Marseilles,  for  instance,  of  telegraphic  and  telephonic  com- 
munication, and  the  building  of  institutions  of  learning,  connected 
with  the  furtherance  of  industry  and  commerce. 

These,  said  the  speaker,  had  federated  into  an  International 
organization  called  the  International  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
These  international  organizations,  when  some  plan  matures, 
petition  the  Governments  for  a  conference  of  nations.  The  organ- 
izations cooperate,  but  they  don't  command;  they  help  but  they 
don't  handle  the  reins  of  power.  Three  such  conferences  have 
already  been  held  in  the  matter  of  bills  of  exchange,  the  unifica- 
tion of  class  customs  and  the  reform  of  calendar  to  secure  a  fixed 
date  for  Easter. 


REMEY 


443 


The  speaker  then  outlined  the  international  organization  and 
the  programs  and  stated  that  the  Fifth  Congress  would  be  held 
next  year  in  Boston  when  the  question  of  the  judicial  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes  promises  to  be  one  of  the  principal 
subjects  for  discussion. 

He  invited  the  largest  possible  American  attendance  in  order  to 
assure  that  practical  cooperation  with  the  Old  World  so  neces- 
sary to  international  peace. 

Chairman  Hammond  :  The  next  speaker  is  Mr.  Charles  Mason 
Remay,  whose  subject  is  "The  Bahai  Movement  and  The  Occi- 
dent-Orient Unity." 

THE  BAHAI  MOVEMENT:  A  TEACHING  OF  PEACE 

CHARLES    MASON   REMEY 

The  Third  Annual  Convention  of  the  Bahais  of  America,  held 
in  Chicago,  Illinois,  sends  greetings  to  the  Third  American  Peace 
Congress,  assembled  in  Baltimore,  Maryland,  with  the  prayer 
that  wisdom  may  advance,  that  all  may  be  illumined,  that  there 
be  no  more  wars  and  strife,  that  reconciliation  and  peace  be 
established,  that  peoples  of  all  religions  and  races  be  united,  that 
the  countries  of  this  earth  become  as  one  land,  and  that  all  hu- 
manity may  abide  in  unity  and  in  peace. 

WORDS  OF  BAHA'o'LLAH 

"We  desire  but  the  good  of  the  world,  and  the  happiness  of 
the  nations  ....  That  all  nations  should  become  one  in 
faith,  and  all  men  as  brothers;  that  the  bonds  of  affection  and 
unity  between  the  sons  of  men  should  be  strengthened  .... 
These  fruitless  strifes,  these  ruinous  wars  shall  pass  away  and  the 
Great  Peace  shall  come  ....  Let  not  a  man  glory  in  this, 
that  he  loves  his  country;  let  him  rather  glory  in  this,  that  he 
loves  his  kind." 

Over  half  a  century  ago,  before  the  attention  of  western  thinkers 
had  to  any  degree  been  directed  toward  the  problem  of  universal 
peace,  there  was  born  in  the  Orient  a  movement  for  peace  and 


444  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

brotherhood,  the  call  of  which  is  now  being  heard  in  the  Occi- 
dent. 

The  Bahai  movement  has  for  its  object  not  only  international 
conciliation,  as  considered  from  the  political  and  economic  view 
points,  but  essentially  the  unification  of  the  people  of  all  races 
and  religions  along  spiritual  lines. 

Religious  and  racial  hatred  has  been  the  chief  cause  of  warfare. 
Through  the  removal  of  these  prejudices  the  followers  of  this 
movement  believe  that  peace  will  be  established  amongst  nations. 
Through  it  thousands  of  Christians,  Moslems,  Jews,  Zoroastrians, 
Hindoos,  and  Buddhists,  of  every  race  and  nationality,  are  being 
firmly  united  in  the  universal  brotherhood  of  man  under  the 
fatherhood  of  God. 

In  the  month  of  May,  1844,  there  arose  in  Persia  a  teacher, 
calling  himself  "The  Bab,"  who  proclaimed  himself  to  be  the 
forerunner  of  ''He  Whom  God  would  manifest."  One  who  would 
shortly  appear  with  spiritual  wisdom  and  power,  through  whose 
teaching  would  be  established  the  Divine  Kingdom  of  Peace  upon 
earth.  The  ministry  of  ''The  Bab"  lasted  six  years,  and  was 
followed  by  his  martyrdom,  as  well  as  the  martyrdom  of  thou- 
sands of  his  followers,  which  was  brought  about  by  the  Moham- 
medan clergy  upon  the  charge  of  heresy. 

Shortly  after  the  martyrdom  of  "The  Bab,"  the  promised  one, 
whose  coming  he  had  foretold,  appeared  in  the  person  of  Baha'o- 
'Uah.  Under  the  most  severe  persecution  Baha'o'llah,  together 
with  some  of  his  followers,  was  exiled  to  Turkey  in  Asia,  then  to 
Turkey  in  Europe,  and  later  on  in  1868  was  sent  to  the  town  of 
Akka,  a  penal  colony  situated  on  the  Mediterranean,  just  north 
of  Mt.  Carmel,  in  Syria.  Here  in  Akka  he  lived  and  taught  until 
he  passed  out  of  this  mortal  world  in  the  year  1892.  He  gave  his 
teachings  and  spiritual  instructions,  yet  during  his  ministry  his 
cause  was  not  explained  nor  established  in  the  world  in  general. 
To  this  end  Baha'o'llah  commanded  his  followers  upon  his  depar- 
ture to  turn  their  faces  toward  his  son  Adbul-Baha  as  thair  spiritual 
guide,  explainer  of  his  teachings,  one  who  would  establish  his  cause 
in  the  world,  and  one  upon  whose  shoulders  his  mantle  would  fall. 

Abdul-Baha,  also  known  as  Abbas  Effendi,  from   1868  until 


REMEY  445 

1908,  because  of  his  teaching,  was  held  a  state  prisoner  in  the  town 
of  Akka.  At  present  he  is  in  Egypt  and  there  is  a  possibility 
that  he  may  visit  this  country  of  America.  He  makes  but  one 
claim  for  himself,  that  of  service  in  the  path  of  God.  His  name, 
Abdul-Baha  Abbas,  means  "Abbas  the  servant  of  God."  He  is 
the  spiritual  leader  of  the  Bahais,  and  is  their  example  to  be  fol- 
lowed in  teaching  this  great  faith  in  the  world.  He  is  making 
the  spiritual  life  of  Baha'o'llah  possible,  and  bringing  it  within  the 
reach  of  the  poeple. 

While  there  have  been  three  teachers  in  this  cause,  Baha'o'llah 
is  the  central  figure,  about  whom  the  other  two  revolve.  It  is 
from  his  name,  Baha,  that  the  movement  takes  its  name.  "The 
Bab"  and  his  movement  were  but  introductory  to,  while  Abdul- 
Baha  and  his  work  are  explanatory  of,  the  Bahai  movement. 

This  religious  teaching  is  brief  and  simple.  Each  of  the  foun- 
ders of  the  great  religious  systems  of  the  world  is  looked  upon  as 
having  been  inspired  by  the  one  spirit  of  truth,  which  is  God. 
The  form  and  letter  of  the  teachings  of  these  various  leaders  differ 
because  of  the  differing  conditions  of  humanity  to  which  they 
ministered,  but  in  spirit  each  taught  the  fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  brotherhood  of  man.  In  the  various  religions  the  fundamental 
truths  are  one  and  the  same. 

Moreover  each  of  the  prophets  taught  of  the  coming  of  a  great 
teacher,  and  of  the  establishment  of  a  universal  religion.  The 
Jews  await  the  coming  of  their  Messiah,  the  Christians  the  coming 
of  the  Christ,  the  Moslems  the  coming  of  the  Mahdi,  the  Budd- 
hists the  coming  of  the  fifth  Buddha,  the  Zoroastrians  the  coming 
of  Shah  Bahram,  and  the  Hindus  the  return  of  Krishma. 

The  Bahai  teach  that  the  spirit  of  these  promised  teachers  is 
one  and  the  same,  and  they  believe  that  in  Baha'o'llah  was  man- 
ifested again  this  one  spirit  of  truth,  the  Word  of  God.  There- 
fore in  his  mission  and  teaching  he  has  accomplished  the  hopes  of 
the  peoples  of  all  religions.  They  believe  that  he  was  spiritually 
endowed  with  the  wisdom  and  understanding  necessary  to  found 
a  new  form  of  religion  applicable  to  the  needs  of  this  day,  one 
which  will  embrace  within  its  fold  people  of  all  races  and  religions, 
uniting  them  in  one  human  brotherhood. 


446  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

The  Bahai  teaching  is  in  no  sense  an  eclectic  philosophy.  It 
is  not  a  theology,  nor  does  it  put  forward  doctrine  or  dogma. 
It  is  essentially  a  religious  faith.  It  seeks  to  change  man's  nature 
not  by  enforcing  upon  him  laws  from  without,  but  by  developing 
the  higher  nature  of  the  individual  from  within. 

Amongst  the  Moslems  the  Bahai  teaching  has  had  a  phenome- 
nal spread.  The  several  recent  progressive  changes  in  the  Islamic 
world  in  Persia  have  only  been  made  possible  through  the  intro- 
duction into  that  country  of  such  progressive  thought,  and  free- 
dom from  the  superstitions  of  the  past,  as  the  Bahai  movement 
stands  for  and  takes  with  it  wherever  it  goes.  The  progressive 
Moslem  finds  the  Bahai  teaching  to  be  quite  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Koran  and  he  accepts  it  as  a  new  testament  added 
thereto. 

In  like  manner  the  Jew  sees  in  this  movement  the  fulfilment  of 
the  hope  of  the  milennial  age  held  out  to  him  in  his  Bible  and 
realizing  this  he  finds  himself  at  one  with  the  Moslem,  and  the 
Christian. 

In  going  farther  into  the  Orient  one  finds  staunch  Bahais 
amongst  the  remnant  of  the  ancient  Zoroastrian  faith.  These 
received  this  message  and  believed  its  principles  because  in  their 
ancient  holy  literature  they  find  hidden  away  its  simple  truths. 

Thinking  Hindus  are  also  being  reached  by  the  Bahai  thought, 
and  through  its  positive  principle  of  action  and  service  in  better- 
ing humanity  they  are  working  to  free  themselves  from  super- 
stition and  caste.  Thus  they  are  in  sympathy  with  the  progress 
of  the  world  along  material  and  spiritual  lines  together,  whereas 
formerly  their  progress  was  limited  because  of  the  negative  phase 
in  which  Hinduism  has  been  during  so  many  centuries. 

The  enlightened  believer  in  Gauatama,  the  Buddah,  finds  in 
his  own  teaching  the  promise  of  peace  and  universal  brotherhood 
on  earth  which  makes  it  easy  for  him  to  detect  and  recognize  the 
fulfilment  of  the  same  in  the  Bahai  movement.  To  the  Buddhist, 
therefore,  the  idea  of  this  movement,  for  the  readjustment  ol 
earthly  conditions  and  the  establishment  of  peace,  is  a  welcome 
one. 

Of  all  people,  none  have  taken  up  the  Bahai  teaching  with  more 


REMEY 


447 


fervor  than  those  scattered  here  and  there,  where  this  message  has 
reached,  throughout  Christendom.  To  them  it  fulfils  and  accom- 
plishes the  hopes  of  Christianity  and  they  are  taking  hold  of  the 
teaching  as  a  practical  power  in  daily  life.  They  are  applying  its 
principles  and  are  holding  out  a  helping  hand  to  their  co-workers 
in  various  parts  of  the  Orient.  Through  this  spirit  of  oneness  with 
the  Orientals  a  bond  between  the  East  and  the  West  is  established, 
a  bond  which  will  strengthen  and  grow  until  all  peoples  Occidental 
and  Oriental  will  be  as  one  people — until  the  great  universal 
civilization,  which  is  so  rapidly  casting  its  signs  before  it,  shall 
stand  accomplished. 

The  Bahais  have  no  form  of  admission  to  their  ranks,  nor  have 
they  any  enrolled  membership.  They  do  not  form  a  sect.  Those 
who  sympathize  with  their  aims  they  consider  as  friends  and  co- 
workers. As  people  work  with  them,  they  gradually  imbibe 
the  spirit  and  life  inspiring  the  body  of  workers  until  they  stand 
forth  as  exponents  of  this  new  faith.  The  Bahais  have  no  out- 
ward institutions  as  barriers  to  differentiate  nor  to  separate  them 
from  other  people. 

Some  of  the  ordnances  of  this  teaching  touch  upon  the  following 
subjects: 

Religious  Unity.  All  men  are  free  to  believe  and  to  worship 
as  they  will,  but  they  are  exhorted  to  unite  in  faith  for  only  through 
spiritual  unity  will  mankind  attain  the  highest  development. 

Tolerance.  The  Bahais  should  not  separate  themselves  from 
people  who  are  not  of  their  belief,  nor  should  they  denounce  nor 
antagonize  those  holding  views  other  than  their  own.  They 
should  mingle  freely  with  all  people  and  show  forth  their  faith 
through  love  and  service  to  their  fellow  men. 

Peace.  Warfare  should  be  abolished  and  international  ques- 
tions should  be  settled  by  arbitration.  In  order  to  facilitate  inter- 
national communication,  one  language  should  be  chosen  from 
those  already  existing,  or  one  devised  for  that  purpose. 

Government.  Representative  legislation  is  most  conducive  to 
the  welfare  of  the  people.  The  Bahais  should  be  loyal  and  law 
abiding  citizens  in  whatever  country  they  may  dwell.  They 
should  not  glory  in  that  they  love  their  country,  but  in  that  they 
love  their  kind. 


448  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Worship.  Prayer  supplemented  by  a  pure  and  useful  life  in 
this  world  form  the  elements  of  true  worship.  Faith  without 
works  is  not  acceptable.  Every  one  should  have  an  occupation 
which  conduces  to  the  welfare  of  humanity,  the  diligent  pursuance 
of  which  is  in  itself  an  act  of  worship. 

Marriage.  Celibacy  and  asceticism  are  discouraged.  Man 
should  marry  and  create  a  family  and  live  in  the  world.  Mo- 
nogamy is  taught. 

Resistance.  Harshness  should  be  met  with  gentleness  and 
hatred  with  love.  With  these  weapons  the  Bahais  will  overcome 
all  opposition. 

The  Church.  In  this  cause  there  is  no  priesthood  apart  from 
the  laity.  Each  one  who  receives  the  spirit  should  share  it  with 
those  whom  he  meets  in  daily  life.  All  are  teachers,  teaching  is 
given  without  money  and  without  price. 

Religious  Government.  "The  House  of  Justice"  a  central 
assembly  the  members  of  which  are  selected  by  general  vote,  is 
to  preside  over  the  affairs  of  the  Bahai  world.  Its  work  has  to 
do  with  charitable  and  educational  matters  and  the  general 
welfare  of  the  people. 

Temperance.  In  all  matters  moderation  is  to  be  observed. 
Man  should  not  use  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage.  The 
taking  of  opium  and  kindred  drug  habits  are  most  emphatically 
denounced,  and  gaming  is  also  forbidden.  The  use  of  tobacco 
is  discouraged. 

Admonitions  forbidding  mendicity,  slavery,  cruelty  to  animals, 
and  various  offences,  together  with  rules  regarding  public  hygiene, 
education  of  both  sexes  and  other  matters  need  not  here  be  men- 
tioned, as  they  are  already  provided  by  western  civilization, 
though  in  the  Orient  the  need  for  these  is  very  great. 

The  effect  of  these  ordnances  cannot  be  overestimated.  In 
the  Orient,  where  religion  is  a  far  more  potent  factor  in  every 
day  life  than  it  is  here  in  the  West,  religious  exhortations  and  in- 
junctions have  inestimable  weight  in  the  lives  of  the  masses  of 
the  people. 

I  have  made  a  study  of  the  Bahai  movement,  would  like  to 
add  a  few  words  of  personal  testimony  regarding  what  I  have 
seen  amongst  the  Bahais  in  many  parts  of  the  world. 


REMEY 


449 


In  Persia,  where  this  movement  had  its  birth,  I  found  that  the 
Bahais  had  not  only  overcome  the  hatred  and  antipathy  which 
has  for  centuries  existed  between  Christian,  Jew,  Zoroastrian  and 
Moslem,  but  through  the  uniting  spirit  of  their  teaching  this 
previously  existing  enmity  had  been  replaced  by  a  most  binding 
fraternal  spirit.  In  the  Bahai  assemblies  all  differences  of  the 
past  had  been  superseded  by  the  strongest  of  ties.  In  that  coun- 
try these  people  have  suffered  much  because  of  the  fanaticism  of 
the  surrounding  people.  Thousands  of  their  members  have  in 
the  past  been  massacred,  while  in  the  present  they  are  under 
many  difficulties.  As  recent  as  1901  over  one  hundred  and  seventy 
Bahais  were  massacred  in  one  town  by  the  Moslems. 

In  Southern  Russia  and  in  Turkistan  I  have  visited  assemblies 
of  Bahais.  In  these  territories  the  movement  is  protected  by  the 
Russian  government,  for  it  is  understood  that  the  Bahais  stand 
for  peace  and  are  in  no  way  connected  with  the  many  revolutionary 
movements  which  continually  keep  those  countries  in  a  state  of 
unrest. 

In  Egypt  and  Syria,  as  well  as  Turkey  I  have  met  groups  of 
Bahais  working  along  progressive  lines,  but  in  those  countries, 
as  well  as  in  Persia,  the  outward  progress  of  the  work  is  not  as 
great  as  the  unseen  progress.  This  is  due  to  the  prejudice  and 
persecution  of  the  Moslems  which  often  lead  to  bloodshed. 

In  India  the  principal  center  of  the  Bahais  is  in  Bombay. 
There  I  found  many  Parsees  or  Zoroastrians  taking  part  in  the 
work.  In  Calcutta  Baroda,  Allahabad,  Agra,  Lahore,  Poona  and 
other  cities  there  are  assemblies  and  in  these  meetings  Christians, 
Hindus  and  Moslems  mingle  as  brothers. 

In  Burma  there  is  a  large  Buddhist  element  amongst  the  Bahais. 
Last  year  I  spent  some  time  traveling  in  that  country,  and  was 
most  hospitably  received  by  the  Bahais  in  several  towns  and 
cities.  In  Japan  I  found  the  Bahai  teaching  to  be  attracting 
some  attention  and  in  China  too,  the  movement,  to  have  a  begin- 
ning. Here  in  these  United  States  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain 
and  Europe,  I  have  visited  many  assemblies  and  found  the  work 
progressing  amongst  people  of  all  classes  and  of  varying  religious 
thought.     Being  essentially  a  spiritual  movement  this  teaching 


4SO  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

appeals  alike  to  the  enlightened  and  to  the  uncultured  as  it  does 
to  people  of  various  religions,  races  and  nationalities. 

Notwithstanding  the  previous  attitude  of  the  religionist,  which 
is  usually  antagonistic  to  beliefs  other  than  his  own,  the  moment 
he  becomes  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bahais  he  no  longer 
limits  his  interest  to  the  mental  confines  to  which  he  has  been 
accustomed.  He  becomes  a  citizen  of  the  world,  freed  from  na- 
tional, religious  and  racial  prejudices.  This  is  noticeable  in  the 
Occidental  Bahai  while  in  the  Oriental  Bahai  it  is  many  times 
more  so,  because  of  the  surrounding  background  of  ignorance, 
superstition  and  fanaticism  against  which  he  stands  out  emanci- 
pated in  bold  relief. 

One  who  has  lived  in  the  Orient  and  known  the  Oriental  people 
will  at  once  recognize  the  importance  of  the  religious  factor  in 
bringing  about  universal  peace.  It  is  the  religious  differences 
between  the  Oriental  and  Occidental  which  have  created  the  great 
chasm  between  eastern  and  western  thought,  manners  and  cus- 
toms. There  being  no  religious  thought  in  common  between  the 
East  and  West,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  their  respective 
peoples  can  meet,  hence  the  necessity  for  a  common  religion  which 
only  can  solve  the  problem.  The  Bahai  movement  is  working 
directly  to  bring  about  confidence,  understanding  and  unity  be- 
tween the  Oriental  and  the  Occidental  peoples.  Baha'o'llah  like 
all  world  movers,  was  far  ahead  of  his  time.  A  universal  religion, 
international  arbitration,  peace,  a  universal  language,  universal 
suffrage,  in  fact  a  universal  civilization,  with  all  of  its  universal 
institutions,  was  unthought  of  by  the  world  when  he,  over  half  a 
century  ago  first  announced  these  principles.  Now  the  world  in 
general  is  awaking  to  the  necessity  for  those  very  institutions  to 
which  thousands  of  Bahais  have  borne  witness  by  persecution  and 
martyrdom. 

Progress  is  the  resounding  chord  of  this  day.  Progress  in  re- 
ligion is  needed  more  than  progress  in  anything  else.  The  world 
is  now  ready  for  a  live  and  progressive  faith  of  brotherly  love  which 
is  broad  enough  to  take  in  every  race  and  every  people;  a  faith 
which  will  lead  and  create  progressive  thought  and  progressive  institu- 
tions; a  faith  which  v.  ill  actually  produce  a  change  in  men's  natures 


BEALS  451 

developing  within  their  souls  divine  virtues;  a  religion  which  does 
not  destroy  but  which  fulfils  the  religions  of  the  past;  a  religion 
free  from  dogma  applicable  to  all  races  and  conditions,  the  unique 
object  of  which  is  peace  and  the  universal  civilization.  Such  a 
faith  is  the  Bahai  teaching. 

Chairman  Hammond:  The  next  speaker  whom  I  wish  to  pre- 
sent is  Dr.  Charles  E.  Beals  who  was  one  of  the  organizers  of  the 
Second  American  Peace  Congress  at  Chicago. 

PATRIOTISM  IN  AN  INTERNATIONAL  WORLD 

CHARLES   E.    BEALS 

Patriotism  is  a  large  word — large  enough  indeed  to  cover  a 
multitude  of  bad  and  good  deeds.  Many  serious  charges  may  be 
laid,  all  too  justly,  at  its  door.  Dr.  Johnson  declared  that  pa- 
triotism was  "the  last  refuge  of  a  scoundrel."  Mr.  Emerson  hesi- 
tated "to  employ  a  word  so  much  abused  as  patriotism,  whose 
true  sense  is  almost  the  reverse  of  the  popular  sense."  Daniel 
Webster,  in  his  day,  lamented  that  a  noble  word  was  trailed  in  the 
dust.  Even  a  secretary  of  war  can  affirm  that  a  "demagogue 
.  .  .  .  is  nothing  if  not  loudly  and  aggressively  patriotic." 
As  one  considers  the  follies  perpetrated,  the  national  injustices 
committed,  the  economic  and  moral  devastation  wrought  under 
the  name  of  patriotism,  one  is  tempted  to  cry  out,  with  Walter 
Walsh,  "  'patriotism'  is  a  bait  flung  out  by  rogues  to  catch  fools." 

In  spite  of  the  wicked  abuses  of  the  word,  however,  patriotism 
stands  for  some  of  the  finest  loyalties,  loftiest  heroisms  and  noblest 
self-sacrifices  the  world  ever  has  seen.  Moreover  patriotism  plays 
no  small  part  in  the  socializing  of  man.  As  understood  in  its 
crude  popular  sense,  it  may  not  teach  the  higher  branches,  but 
it  serves  at  least  as  a  good  primary  school  teacher  in  the  social 
education  of  mankind.  And,  with  a  clearer  understanding  of 
the  possibilities  of  a  new  type  of  patriotism,  it  is  capable  of  being 
keyed  to  service  and  universal  brotherhood.  I  venture,  therefore, 
to  plead  for  patriotism,  albeit  for  a  just  patriotism,  for  a  rational 
patriotism,  for  a  patriotism  big  enough  and  fine  enough  to  fit  the 


452  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

new  conditions  and  the  best  thought  and  the  highest  ideals  of  the 
new  day. 

I.   THE    WORLD   ALREADY   PARTIALLY   INTERNATIONALIZED 

The  patriotism  which  rightminded  men  henceforth  will  be  will- 
ing to  accept  must  state  itself  in  the  terms  of  an  internationalized 
world.  To  speak  of  an  internationalized  world  is  not  utopian- 
ism,  not  an  "iridescent  dream"  of  an  improbable,  if  not  impos- 
sible, millennium,  not  rainbow-chasing,  but  plain  prose  fact. 
For  the  world  already  is  partially  internationalized;  and  the  evo- 
lution of  mankind  is  headed,  and  can  head,  in  but  one  direction, 
namely,  towards  a  more  and  more  complete  internationalization. 
Ponderous  volumes  would  be  required  to  set  forth  in  detail  the 
progress  already  registered.  But,  in  a  rapid  survey,  we  may 
hurriedly  consider  a  few  of  the  general  forms  in  which  internation- 
alism is  embodying  itself. 

I.  We  may  begin  by  glancing  at  some  of  the  unofficial  inter- 
national organizations  existing  at  present.  All  sorts  of  learned 
societies  are  internationally  organized.  Scientific  truth  knows 
no  geographical  or  political  boundary  lines.  The  binomial  theo- 
rem is  as  true  in  Bombay  as  in  Boston.  When  Japan  entered 
upon  the  era  of  enlightenment  a  proclamation  was  issued,  declar- 
ing that  ''knowledge  shall  be  sought  for  throughout  the  whole 
earth"  (DeForest:  Sunrise  in  the  Sunrise  Kingdom,  25).  The 
republic  of  science  is  world-embracing.  Scientific  investigators 
of  all  lands  are  doing  team-work  together,  with  microscope  and 
telescope,  test-tube  and  micrometer.  Learned  men  meet  together 
in  the  annual  meetings  of  their  international  scientific  societies. 
Professors  are  exchanged  between  some  of  the  nations.  Oriental 
students  by  the  thousand  are  matriculated  in  American  and  Euro- 
pean universities.  Students  of  all  nationalities  live  together  in 
the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs.  Engineers  with  their  transit  and  level 
are  at  work  under  every  sky,  and  engineering  feats  and  facts  are 
published  in  the  engineering  journals  of  all  civilized  lands.  Agri- 
culturalists, aviators,  penologists,  educators,  electricians,  geog- 
raphers,   linguists,    artists,    musicians,    men  of  letters,   doctors, 


BEALS 


453 


philanthropists,  statisticians,  zoologists,  etc.,  are  banded  together 
in  their  respective  international  organizations,  and  hold  annual 
conferences,  first  in  one  land,  and  then  in  another.  Many  of 
these  bodies  maintain  permanent  headquarters  and  publish  reg- 
ular bulletins. 

Labor  is  becoming  more  and  more  internationalized.  Over 
thirty  trades  are  internationally  organized.  The  emblem  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  is  a  pair  of  clasped  hands  upon  a 
globe.  The  subdivision  of  labor  makes  class  dependent  upon 
class,  nation  upon  nation.  The  mill  operatives  of  Lancashire, 
England,  were  brought  to  the  very  verge  of  starvation  by  our 
American  Civil  War.  Industrial  migration  and  immigration 
play  no  small  part  in  binding  together  the  old  world  with  the  new. 
There  is  an  international  society  for  labor  legislation,  with  sec- 
tions in  each  land  and  publications  in  the  various  languages. 
(Comp.  Graham  Taylor  in  Proceedings  of  Second  National  Peace 
Congress,  i68.)  The  permanent  bureau  of  this  society  is  at  Basel 
(American  Journal  of  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  821). 

Socialism  too,  is  an  international  movement.  It  is  probably 
more  radical  in  its  direct  propaganda  for  internationalism  than 
any  other  great  organized  movement  of  our  day.  It  exposes  the 
sophistries  and  wastes  and  wickednesses  of  competing  and  con- 
tending nationalisms  with  imrelenting  mercilessness. 

Business  is  coming  to  be  more  and  more  international.  Great 
business  enterprises  seek  world  markets,  I  remember  seeing  in 
London,  Paris,  Lucerne  and  other  European  cities,  branch-stores 
of  great  shoe  manufacturing  establishments  of  Brockton,  Massa- 
chusetts. The  International  Harvester  Company  does  business 
in  many  lands.  If  war  should  break  out  in  any  part  of  the  world, 
the  harvester  business  in  Chicago  would  be  affected.  Even  the 
short  Boxer  outbreak  in  China,  though  it  lasted  but  a  few  weeks, 
affected  the  cotton-mills  operatives  in  Fall  River  and  New  Bed- 
ford. A  gentleman  called  at  our  peace  ofl&ce  in  Chicago  not  long 
ago  and  said,  "I  have  just  finished  building  bridges  in  Burmah 
and  Egypt.  My  men  are  at  work  on  one  in  St.  Petersburg.  I 
can't  sell  my  bridges  if  war  breaks  out.  So  I  think  I'd  better 
join  the  peace  society  and  help  on  its  work."     I  have  been  in- 


454  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

formed  by  a  prominent  London  economist  that  during  our  Ameri- 
can panic  of  1907  the  Bank  of  England  came  within  a  few  days  of 
suspending  because  of  the  financial  situation  in  the  United  States. 
The  Bank  of  England  sought  to  obtain  relief,  at  that  crisis,  from 
Berlin  and  Paris  and  other  financial  centers,  but  the  great  banking 
institutions  of  those  cities  were  unable  to  render  any  assistance 
because  they  too  were  similarly  affected  by  the  American  panic. 
Nor  should  we  overlook  the  international  investments,  which  are 
increasing  year  by  year.  If  one  has  not  done  so  already,  he  should 
read  that  great  little  book  of  Norman  Angell's,  The  Great  Illu- 
sion, which  has  just  been  published  simultaneously  at  London, 
New  York,  Paris,  Leipsic,  Copenhagen,  Madrid,  Borga  (Finland), 
Leyden,  Turin,  Stockholm  and  Tokio.  There  is  an  international 
organization  of  Chambers  of  Commerce  holding  annual  congresses. 
The  last  congress  was  held  in  London  last  June.  Many  inter- 
national congresses  of  railroads  have  been  held  and  a  monthly 
bulletin  in  two  languages  is  published. 

There  are  various  internationally  organized  law  associations. 
The  International  Law  Association  held  its  twenty-sixth  annual 
conference  in  London  in  1910. 

When  one  comes  to  study  the  philanthropic  and  reform  move- 
ments of  our  day,  he  finds  that  many  of  these  are  of  international 
scope.  For  example  take  the  Red  Cross  Society,  which  has  its 
headquarters  at  Geneva.  Or  take  the  peace  societies  of  th3  world 
which  have  maintained  a  permanent  international  bureau  of  peace 
at  Berne  since  1891,  said  bureau  issuing  a  fortnightly  bulletin. 

In  religion  we  find  not  only  the  great  missionary  societies  inter- 
lacing orient  and  Occident,  not  only  great  world  congresses  of 
particular  denominations  (like  Pan-Presbyterianism  or  the  Oecu- 
menical Methodist  Conference  or  the  World's  Council  of  Congre- 
gationalists,  or  Pan-Anglicanism)  but  great  interdenominational 
movements  like  the  Y.  P.  S.  C.  E.  and  Y.  M.  C.  A.  binding  con- 
tinent to  continent.  The  World's  Christian  Student  Federation 
held  its  seventh  biennial  meeting  in  Tokio  in  1907,  the  first  world 
conference  ever  held  in  Japan  (See  DeForest:  Sunrise  in  the  Sun- 
rise Kingdom,  15 1-2). 

We  might  continue  almost  indefinitely  in  an  attempt  to  enu- 


SEALS  455 

merate  some  of  the  voluntary  and  unofficial  enterprises  which  are 
internationally  organized.  Probably  during  the  last  75  years 
hundreds  of  international  conferences  have  been  held.  Sufl&ce  it 
to  say  that,  as  Professor  Reinsch  tell  us,  "the  world  of  interna- 
tional organization  is  an  accomplished  fact.  The  idea  of  cos- 
mopolitanism is  no  longer  a  castle  in  the  air,  but  it  has  become 
incorporated  in  numerous  associations  and  unions,  world  wide 
in  their  operation.  Nor  are  these  merely  manifested  in  Congresses 
where  tendencies  and  aims  are  discussed,  and  resolutions  voted. 
No,  they  have  been  provided  with  a  permanent  organization,  with 
executive  bureaus,  with  arbitration  tribunals,  with  legislative 
commissions  and  assemblies  of  international  unions  composed  of 
private  individuals,  united  for  the  advancement  of  industry,  com- 
merce, or  scientific  work;  there  are  no  less  than  150,  all  provided 
with  a  permanent  form  of  organization"  (Prof.  Reinsch:  Address 
delivered  at  Second  American  Peace  Congress,  report  taken  from 
Unity,  May  20,  1909).  There  is  now  at  Brussels  a  Central  Office 
of  International  Associations,  "whose  purpose  is  to  act  as  a  clear- 
ing house  for  the  national  and  international  associations  of  the 
world,  official  and  unofficial"  {Advocate  of  Peace,  191 1,  41). 

2.  Passing  now  from  voluntary  societies  let  us  next  consider 
the  Interparliamentary  Union.  This  is  an  international  organ- 
ization composed  of  members  of  the  various  national  law-making 
bodies  of  the  world,  formed  for  the  promotion  of  arbitration  and 
better  relations  between  nations.  Its  membership  is  now  about 
3000.  It  supports  a  permanent  bureau  at  Brussels.  Some  of  the 
governments  are  making  annual  appropriations  for  this  bureau. 
For  the  first  time  in  our  history  as  a  nation,  the  United  States 
Congress  in  19 10  appropriated  a  small  sum  for  this  purpose. 
While,  strictly  speaking,  the  Interparliamentary  Union  is  a  vol- 
untary organization,  nevertheless  being  composed  solely  of  law- 
makers of  the  various  nations,  and  receiving  support  from  some 
of  the  governments,  it  is  semi-official,  semi-intergovernmental. 
Needless  to  say,  an  organization  with  such  aims  and  personnel  is 
highly  significant  and  prophetic. 

3.  But,  most  important  of  all,  are  the  official,  intergovernmental 
enterprises  which  have  been  undertaken  by  governments.     In  the 


4S6  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

82  years  from  1826  to  1907,  that  is,  from  the  Congress  of  Panama 
to  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  there  were  convened  119 
strictly  international  gatherings.  Judge  (and  now  Governor) 
Simeon  E.  Baldwin  has  enumerated  these  for  us  {American 
Journal  of  International  Law,  I,  Part  III,  808  £f).  The  compre-r 
he'nsiveness  of  these  international  meetings  is  revealed  in  a  hasty 
survey.  International  congresses  and  conferences  have  been 
held  by  the  various  governments  to  consider  Sanitation  and  Resist- 
ance to  the  Plague,  A  Uniform  System  of  Meteorological  observ- 
ations at  Sea,  Statistics,  Neutralization  (on  repeated  occasions), 
Sound  Dues  (to  Denmark),  the  Free  Navigation  of  Rivers,  the 
Universal  Postal  Union,  Duties  (on  certain  articles  like  sugar), 
Weights  and  Measures,  Marine  Signalling,  Monetary  Subjects, 
Telegraphy,  The  Rules  of  War,  the  Metric  System,  Submarine 
Telegraphic  Cables,  Geography,  Protection  against  Plant  Dis- 
seases,  Industrial  Property,  Railroad  Transportation,  Fisheries, 
Exchange  of  Official  and  Scientific  Documents,  the  Prime  Meridian 
Commercial  Law,  Freedom  of  Grade  through  the  Suez  Canal, 
Literary  and  Artistic  Property,  the  Liquor  Traffic,  Tariffs,  The 
Working  Classes,  Maritime  Law,  the  Slave  Trade,  Protection  of 
Laborers  in  Factories,  Pan-America,  Private  International  Law, 
Telephony,  Social  and  Economic  Questions,  Arbitration,  the  White 
Slave  Traffic,  Central  American  Peace,  Wireless  Telegraphy,  the 
Unification  of  the  Formulae  of  Potent  Drugs,  Agriculture,  the  Use 
of  White  Phosphorus  in  Matches,  Night  Work  for  Women, 
Morocco,  and  the  First  and  Second  Peace  Conferences  at  The 
Hague. 

More  significant  even  than  these  international  conferences  are 
the  permanent  international  bureaus  and  commissions  which  are 
in  actual  operation.  According  to  Professor  Reinsch;  ''There 
are  in  existence  over  45  public  international  unions,  composed  of 
states.  Of  these  30  are  provided  with  administrative  bureaus  or 
commissions." 

Down  in  Washington,  D.  C,  is  the  Pan-American  Union 
through  which  21  nations  do  business  cooperatively.  In  Central 
America  there  is  in  operation  the  first  permanent  High  Tri- 
bunal of  Nations  in  the  history  of  the  world,  an  International 


BEALS 


457 


High  Court  which  has  full  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  that  may  arise 
between  the  five  contracting  republics.  Go  to  Berlin  and  you  see 
an  International  Bureau  of  Weights  and  Measures.  Paris  is  the 
seat  of  the  permanent  International  Commission  on  Freedom  of 
Trade  through  the  Suez  Canal.  Go  to  little  Berne,  which  globe- 
trotting tourists  skip  after  a  look  at  the  famous  Bears,  and  you 
find  a  whole  group  of  international  bureaus,  the  permanent  Bureau 
for  the  Protection  of  Industrial,  Literary  and  Artistic  Property, 
which  publishes  a  monthly  journal;  the  permanent  Monetary 
Diplomatic  Bureau;  the  permanent  Bureau  of  Telegraphy  which 
publishes  a  gazette  and  is  in  ofl&cial  touch  with  40  bureaus  in  as 
many  countries  besides  20  private  corporations;  the  Bureau  for 
Protection  against  Phylloxera  (supported  by  five  powers);  the 
Tariff  Bureau  which  publishes  its  bulletin  in  five  different  lan- 
guages; and  the  Bureau  of  Railway  Transportation  which  also 
issues  a  paper.  Best  known  of  all  is  the  Berne  Bureau  of  the 
Universal  Postal  Union,  the  executive  body  through  which  the 
postal  systems  of  all  the  civilized,  and  some  of  the  nations  of  the 
uncivilized,  world  are  administered.  Fifty  different  postal  ad- 
ministrations use  it  and  support  it.  Its  congresses  are  held  reg- 
ularly every  five  years,  and  to  these  congresses  the  accredited  and 
official  representatives  of  the  different  powers  are  sent  to  legis- 
late for  the  postal  service  of  the  world.  As  Judge  Baldwin  well 
says :  ''It  can  no  longer  be  sneered  at  as  impracticable,  because  it 
exists  and  has  existed  as  a  working  force  for  a  whole  generation. 
Every  man  who  sends  a  letter  from  New  York  to  Tokio  with  quick 
despatch  for  a  fee  of  only  five  cents,  knows  that  he  owes  this 
privilege  to  an  international  agreement,  and  feels  himself  by  virtue 
of  it  a  citizen  of  the  world." 

''The  first  formal  session  of  the  International  Institute  of  Agri- 
culture took  place  in  Rome.  This  institute  is  due  to  the  initia- 
tive of  Mr.  David  Lubin  of  California.  Mr.  Lubin's  scheme  was 
first  presented  to  our  national  authorities  at  Washington,  who  were 
asked  to  initiate  the  Institute.  It  was  rejected  by  them.  The 
young  King  of  Ital^,  Victor  Emanuel,  took  it  up,  when  asked  to 
do  so,  and  the  Institute  has  been  successfully  inaugurated.  The 
meeting  in  Rome  was  attended  by  delegates  from  46   nations, 


458  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

including  the  United  States.  The  purpose  of  the  Institute  is  to 
promote  the  development  of  agriculture  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
the  restoration  of  worn-out  lands,  the  redemption  of  the  great 
still  unused  tracts  of  the  earth's  surface,  etc."  {The  Advocate 
of  Peace,  December,  1908). 

Similarly,  within  a  few  years,  an  International  Health  Bureau 
has  been  established  with  an  international  Office  of  Public  Hygiene 
at  Paris.  Data  concerning  infectious  diseases,  notably  cholera, 
plague  and  yellow  fever,  will  be  collected  and  measures  taken  to 
combat  these  diseases.  Before  long  nations  will  wage  a  world- 
wide war  on  the  rat  as  a  bearer  of  diseases  and  then  this  pestifer- 
ous vermin  will  be  wiped  off  the  face  of  the  earth. 

In  1899  was  held  the  First  Hague  Conference  in  which  26  powers 
participated,  and  three  conventions,  or  articles  of  agreement,  were 
adopted.  Eight  years  later  the  Second  Hague  Conference  con- 
vened in  which  44  powers — practically  the  entire  world — partici- 
pated. There,  through  their  official  representatives,  the  nations 
of  the  world,  by  unanimous  vote,  adopted  14  conventions  and 
made  provision  for  a  periodic  re-assembling  of  the  Conference  and 
for  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  world  court. 

But  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  I  repeat  that  we  have  already 
entered  upon  the  Opening  chapter  of  internationalism.  We  are 
even  at  present  doing  a  whole  lot  of  business  together  as  a  world. 
These  different  cities  which  are  the  seats  of  permanent  interna- 
tional bureaus  are  virtually,  with  respect  to  certain  specific  func- 
tions, the  capitals  of  the  world.  In  due  time,  for  economy's 
sake  and  for  the  sake  of  greater  efficiency,  all  these  separate  func- 
tions will  be  transferred  to  one  capital,  where  all  affairs  will  be 
legislated  upon  and  administered.  The  dozen  Berne  Bureaus, 
the  Paris  Bureaus,  the  Berlin  and  Brussels  and  Rome  Bureaus, 
will  then  naturally  be  transferred  to  one  place — probably  The 
Hague.  Thus,  the  internationalism  which  already  has  been  born 
by  the  natural  process  of  business  evolution,  will  grow  and  wax 
stronger.  To  the  question,  whether  internationalism  would 
work,  the  answer  is,  it  is  working.  The  same  irresistible  evolu- 
tionary forces  which  forced  the  American  Colonies  on  from  a 
loose  federation  to  a  real  nation,  will,  in  a  similar  way,  carry  for- 


BEALS  459 

ward  the  world  from  its  present  loosely  federated  organization  to 
a  unified,  simplified,  economical,  effective  and  universally  just, 
internationalism.  And  this  process  will  be  more  rapid  than  some 
of  us  think,  perhaps  more  rapid  than  even  the  most  radical  and 
sanguine  dare  to  dream. 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  eighteenth  century  was  a  period 
of  dependence;  the  nineteenth,  a  period  of  independence;  while  in 
the  twentieth  century  the  great  word  is  interdependence.  Cer- 
tainly the  race  is  just  entering  upon  the  final  chapter  of  political 
evolution.  I  say  this  not  in  any  alarmist  spirit,  not  in  any  cheap, 
superstitious,  catastrophic  sense,  but  ground  my  glad  statement 
on  sober,  scientific  facts.  Look  back  over  the  successive  stages 
in  the  evolution  of  mankind.  First,  the  individual  was  evolved, 
then  the  family,  then  the  tribe,  then  the  nation.  The  evolution 
process  which  has  been  going  on  from  the  beginning  of  man's  exist- 
ence will  not  stop  now,  and  we  shall  go  on  and  on  to  the  next  chapter 
and  the  next.  And  what  will  be  the  next  thing?  Internationalism. 
And  beyond  internationalism,  what?  Nothing,  in  the  way  of  world 
political  organization,  unless,  or  until,  Professor  Percival  Lowell 
shall  succeed  in  annexing  Mars.  After  such  annexation  pan- 
planetism  might  become  possible.  But,  until  then,  internation- 
alism is  the  final  chapter  in  the  political  evolution  of  man. 

At  the  same  time,  we  may  say  that  while  the  complete  realiza- 
tion of  internationalism  will  be  the  last  chapter  in  political  evolu- 
tion, in  another  sense  it  will  be  the  first  chapter  in  the  higher 
industrial,  educational,  social,  and  moral  evolution  of  man. 

II.   THE   INADEQUACY   OF   THE   OLD,   DIVISIVE   PATRIOTISM 

Manifestly,  if  the  world  is  already  doing  business  internation- 
ally, the  old  divisive  type  of  patriotism  is  inadequate  to  the  needs 
of  the  new  day.  The  older  patriotism  was  characterized  by  three 
things — it  was  provincial  and  selfish,  it  was  a  patriotism  of  hatred 
of  other  nations,  and  it  was  largely  a  patriotism  of  military  strife. 

I.  The  patriotism  of  provincialism  and  selfishness.  As  Charles 
Sumner  pointed  out  in  his  address  on  "The  True  Grandeur  of 
Nations,"  our  ideas  of  patriotism  are  largely  inherited  from  the 


460  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

ancients.  Cicero  said  of  Rome  that  that  country  alone  embraced 
all  the  excellences  of  all.  Greek  and  Roman  conceptions  of  na- 
tions were  intensely  narrow,  and  a  selfish  type  of  patriotism  re- 
sulted. We  moderns  have  only  borrowed  the  older  conceptions 
and  attached  them  to  our  own  respective  nations.  The  story 
is  told  of  an  American  congressman  who,  when  asked  what  efifect 
a  certain  measure  would  produce  abroad,  ejaculated,  "What 
have  we  to  do  with  abroad?"  Stephen  Decatur's  atrocious 
toast,  '*  My  country,  right  or  wrong,"  all  too  truly  represents  the 
general  sentiment  prevailing  under  the  older  patriotism.  How 
selfish  the  spread-eagle  words  of  Daniel  Webster  sound  to  us 
today;  ''Let  the  object  be  our  country,  our  whole  country,  and 
nothing  but  our  country !"  (Bartlett :  Quotations,  530) .  No  wonder 
thoughtful  people  have  protested  against  such  barbaric  selfish- 
ness. Herbert  Spencer  heads  one  of  his  chapters,  ''The  Bias 
of  Patriotism."  (See  Walsh:  Moral  Damage  53.)  George  Eliot 
defined  patriotism  as  the  virtue  of  narrow  minds  {Proceed- 
ings Second  American  Peace  Congress,  316).  Mrs.  Browning 
argued  that  if  patriotism  means  the  flattery  of  one's  nation  in 
every  case,  then  the  patriot  ...  is  only  a  courtier  (Mrs. 
Browning:  Poems,  II,  305).  This  provincial,  selfish  patriotism 
often  takes  the  form  of  a  contempt  for  other  nations  rather  than 
a  reverence  for  one's  own.  (Comp.  Dawson:  Reproach  of  Christ, 
163).  Hence  Charles  Sumner  uttered  his  noble  protest  against 
that  form  of  patriotism  which  interferes  with  the  spirit  of  human- 
ity and  is  mere  sectionalism  of  the  heart  (Sumner:  "True 
Grandeur  of  Nations").  And  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  exhorts  us  to 
"bid  good-by  to  the  provincialism  that  calls  itself  patriotism,  and 
thinks  it  is  patriotic  because  it  sneers  at  every  other  nation  but 
its  own"  (Abbott:  "Address  on  International  Brotherhood, 
Modern  Eloquence,  VII,  I).  In  trumpet  tones  Ernest  Crosby 
sounds  the  same  call  to  a  better  patriotism: 

Are  these  our  patriots,  these,  the  blind, 
Whose  love  of  country  is  combined 
With  petty  hate  for  all  mankind? 
Nay  from  their  rule  we  pray  release; 
Soon  may  such  love  of  coimtry  cease. 
They  know  not  love  that  love  not  peace. 


BEALS  461 

Especially  timely  is  the  warning  of  Melville  E.  Stone  concern- 
ing the  dangers  which  are  created  by  the  race  prejudices  of  Anglo- 
Saxons  in  the  Orient  {National  Geographic  Magazine,  December, 
1910). 

2.  The  patriotism  of  hate.  Naturally,  and  all  too  easily,  a 
patriotism  of  provincialism  and  selfishness  heads  up  into  a  patriot- 
ism of  hate.  All  down  through  the  centuries  true  patriotism  has 
been  thought  to  imply  an  intense  hatred  of  other  nations.  To  the 
Greeks,  all  foreigners  were  barbarians.  Only  until  a  compara- 
tively high  state  of  civilization  is  attained  are  foreigners  regarded 
otherwise  than  as  enemies.  Especially  in  those  cases  into  which 
war  has  entered,  is  the  test  of  hatred  passed  on  from  decade  to 
decade. 

For  generations  the  sine  qua  non  of  British  patriotism  was 
hatred  of  the  French.  Nelson's  motto  was,  "Trust  in  God,  and 
hate  the  Frenchman  like  the  devil."  During  the  Boer  War 
any  Briton  who  did  not  emphatically  declare  his  hatred  of  the 
Boers  was  set  down  as  a  traitor,  labelled  "Pro-Boer,"  and-,  in 
many  cases,  mobbed.  In  the  last  decade  British  patriotism  has 
taken  the  form  of  anti-Germanism. 

So,  too,  in  Germany.  Revenge  on  France  for  humiliation  by 
Napoleon  was  for  over  half  a  century  the  one  patriotic  purpose 
nursed  by  Germans.  This  sentiment  became  incarnated  in  a 
group  of  statuary  on  one  of  the  Berlin  bridges,  in  which  a  stal- 
wart warrior  is  teaching  an  ardent  youth  the  art  of  war  (Stoddard: 
Lectures,  VI  Berlin,  18.)  A  famous  Berlin  teacher  used  to  make 
a  practice  of  leading  his  pupils  out  through  the  Brandenburg 
Gate,  invariably  asking  them,  "Of  what  are  you  thinking"? 
Usually  the  answers  were  not  entirely  satisfactory  and  the  teacher 
would  upbraid  his  pupils  saying:  "You  should  be  remembering 
here  that  you  are  the  children  of  the  vanquished;  and  that  your 
first  resolve,  as  men,  must  be  to  march  to  Paris,  and  bring  back 
thence  the  car  of  victory  stolen  from  this  gate  by  the  robber 
Napoleon"  (the  same).  Even  Francis  Lieber,  whose  Rules  of 
War  almost  may  be  considered  as  the  nucleus  of  a  code  of  inter- 
national law,  never  could  rise  above  his  hatred  of  France,  thus 
inculcated.     Germany's  humiliation  by  Napoleon  rankled  in  his 


462  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

memory.  When  Germany  triumphed  in  the  Franco-Prussian 
War  the  great  publicist  could  not  refrain  from  writing  to  friends 
in  Germany  advising  that  the  most  stringent  terms  be  imposed 
upon  the  conquered  nation.  His  love  of  Fatherland  was  ani- 
mated by  what  Charles  Sumner  characterized  as  "  Gallophobia" 
{American  Journal  of  International  Law,  January  191 1,  87,  89). 

For  a  century  or  more  American  patriotism  consisted  of  hatred 
of  mother  country — Anglophobia.  In  1898,  however, "  Remember 
the  Maine"  became  the  slogan.  During  the  war  with  Spain  a 
school  teacher  in  Washington,  D.  C,  asked  what  patriotism  meant. 
The  reply  given  by  one  of  the  girl  pupils  was,  "To  kill  Spaniards" 
(Warner:  Ethics  of  Force,  40-41).  Today,  if  we  are  to  accept 
the  brainless  jingoism  of  scheming  demagogues,  the  very  quint- 
essence of  American  patriotism  is  an  intense  hatred  of  Japan. 

Even  this  brief  historical  survey  convinces  one  that  there  is 
too  much  ground  for  the  charge  that  patriotism,  as  popularly 
understood,  "requires  us,  ofif  and  on,  to  hate  all  foreign  govern- 
ments, especially  such  as  are  called  monarchies,  and  to  pursue  our 
own  interests  and  ends  with  lordly  indifference  to  the  opinions  and 
interests  of  mankind.  It  glories  in  the  immensity  of  our  popula- 
tion, our  vast  resources,  and  our  assumed  ability  to  thrash  the 
united  world.  It  relates,  in  fact,  wholly  to  war,  actual  or  pros- 
pective" (Warner:  Ethics  of  Force,  40). 

Thinking  people,  however,  refuse  to  accept  any  longer  hatred 
as  a  criterion  of  patriotism.  Hatred  is  mere  negativism.  It 
proves  nothing.  A  man's  fidelity  to  his  wife  is  not  demonstrated 
by  his  hatred  of  a  neighbor.  In  religion  men  are  coming  to  see 
that  old  hatred  tests  are  insufficient.  We  should  no  longer  accept 
Sancho  Panza's  plea  that  he  hated  the  Jews  as  valid  and  sufficient 
evidence  of  being  a  Christian.  The  story  is  told  concerning  a  little 
girl  who  applied  for  admission  to  an  orthodox  church.  When 
asked  by  the  examining  committee  why  she  thought  she  was  a 
Christian  she  replied,  "I  just  hate  the  Universalists  and  Unitar- 
ians." She  was  admitted.  No  other  evidence  was  needed  at 
that  time.  But  today  something  more  than  hatred  is  required 
in  religion.  And  as  for  patriotism,  mere  hatred  of  a  sister  nation, 
is  altogether  too  negative  and  barbarous  to  satisfy  the  citizens  of 


BEALS 


463 


an  internationalized  world.  A  patriotism  of  hate  is  too  small  to 
fit  even  the  present  civilization,  to  say  nothing  of  the  finer  civil- 
ization of  tomorrow. 

Even  now  the  words  of  Ernest  Crosby  do  not  sound  so  treason- 
able as  they  did  when  penned  by  him: 

I  am  no  patriot. 

I  do  not  wish  my  countrymen  to  overrun  the  world. 

I  love  the  date-palm  equally  with  the  pine-tree,  and  each  in  its  place. 

I  am  as  true  a  friend  to  the  banana  and  orange  as  to  the  pear  and  apple. 

I  thank  the  genial  breath  of  cUmate  for  making  men  different. 

I  am  glad  to  know  that,  if  my  people  succeed  in  spreading  over  the  face  of 
the  earth,  they  will  gradually  differ  from  each  other  as  they  attune  them- 
selves to  every  degree  of  latitude  and  longitude. 

Humanity  is  no  air  to  be  strummed  on  one  note  or  upon  one  instrument. 

It  is  a  symphony  where  every  note  and  instrument  has  its  part,  and  would 
be  sadly  missed. 

I  do  not  take  the  side  of  the  cornet  against  the  violin,  for  the  comet  needs 
the  violin. 

I  am  no  patriot. 

I  love  my  country  too  well  to  be  a  patriot. 

(Ernest  Crosby:    Swords  and  Plowshares,  iS-16.) 

3.  The  old  patriotism  was  too  largely  a  gun  patriotism.  Mrs. 
Mead,  in  one  of  her  pamphlets,  tells  of  a  child's  paper  which, 
some  time  ago,  contained  a  picture  of  an  old  man  showing  a  boy 
a  gun,  while  beneath  the  picture  were  the  words,  "Teaching 
Patriotism."  And  Mr.  Mead,  in  his  introduction  to  Sumner's 
Addresses  on  War,  says,  "Every  war  gives  new  life  to  that  old 
notion  which  dies  so  hard.  .  .  .  that  patriotism  is  somehow 
bound  up  with  war — the  patriotic  war  man,  the  man  who  fights 
or  wants  to  fight  for  his  country."  One  of  our  American  college 
presidents  says,  "The  gateway  to  social  service  is  no  longer  alone 
by  way  of  West  Point  or  Annapolis,  but  it  comes  through  service 
to  humanity  in  the  arts  and  in  the  marts  and  in  the  manufacturies 
and  the  labor  and  the  home  rather  than  upon  the  field  of  battle." 
There  is  a  world  of  truth,  too,  in  these  words  from  Scotland:  "To 
risk  life  on  the  battlefield  is  not  the  only  form  of  patriotism;  it 
may  not  be  that  bespattered  thing  at  all,  but  only  adventure, 


464  THIRD    AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

excitement,  pugilism,  mercenariness,  social  outlawry,  moral  cow- 
ardice or  other  squalid  impulse."  Certainly,  as  Mr.  Bryan  points 
out;  "One  of  the  things  we  should  try  to  cultivate  is  the  idea  that 
it  is  not  necessary  for  a  man  to  die  on  the  battlefield  in  order  to  be 
a  patriot." 

When  one  studies  the  budgets  of  the  various  nations  one  comes 
to  realize  the  extent  to  which  the  gun  type  of  patriotism  prevails. 

The  chief  and  sufficient  indictment  against  gun  patriotism  is 
this,  that  it  is  the  one  thing  which  obstructs  the  progress  of  an 
evolving  internationalism.  We  have  pointed  out  that  learned 
societies,  reformers,  educators  and  even  governments  are  organ- 
izing and  cooperating  internationally.  While  scientists,  reform- 
ers, philosophers,  educators,  teachers,  churchmen  and  govern- 
ment commissioners  meet  together  as  co-workers,  form  genuine 
friendships  with  men  of  their  own  group,  and  look  upon  each  other 
as  brother  toilers  in  a  common  holy  cause,  the  one  man  who  is 
out  of  joint  with  all  this  increasing  international  comradeship 
is  the  gun  patriot.  The  gun  patriot  is  not  loyal  to  his  own  class. 
The  gun  patriot  of  one  land  looks  upon  the  gun  patriot  of  another 
land  as  a  menace  to  his  own  nation. 

Such  was  the  older  patriotism,  provincial  and  selfish,  animated 
with  hate,  and  with  a  gun  for  its  emblem.  With  justice  Edward 
Eggleston  characterized  such  patriotism  as  "a  virtue  of  the  half- 
developed,  higher  than  tribal  instinct  and  lower  than  that  great 
world  benevolence  that  is  to  be  the  work  of  coming  ages"  (Edward 
Eggleston:  "The  New  History;  "See  Modern  Eloquence,  VIII, 
404).  But  competitive  internationalism  has  had  its  day  and  is 
even  now  obsolescent.     A  new  patriotism  is  being  born. 

III.    THE   NEW  PATRIOTISM   SYNTHETIC 

An  internationalized  world  requires  a  patriotism  that  shall  be 
synthetic,  instead  of  divisive;  cooperative,  instead  of  competitive, 
constructive,  instead  of  destructive.  Pretty  rapidly  we  are  learn- 
ing to  enlarge  tribal  sentiment  and  national  loyalty  until  our 
patriotism  shall  be  world-embracing.  This  does  not  mean  the 
destruction  of  patriotism,  but  its  completion. 


BEALS  465 

1,  The  new  patriotism  is  loyal  to  internationalism.  We  know 
that  it  is  possible  to  be  a  loyal  citizen  of  the  city  of  Chicago  and  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  and  of  the  United  States  of  America.  So, 
while  remaining  loyal  to  all  these  it  is  possible  at  the  same  time 
to  yield  allegiance  to  an  internationalized  world.  As  Goldwin 
Smith  so  beautifully  said,  "Above  all  nations  is  humanity." 
[When  the  New  England  Peace  Congress  of  1910  devoted  a  day 
to  the  honoring  of  the  memory  of  Elihu  Burritt,  a  mammoth 
banner  bearing  this  noble  sentiment  of  Professor  Smith  flung 
across  the  principal  square  of  New  Britain,  Connecticut.  These 
words  have  been  adopted  as  the  motto  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Clubs. 
They  express  the  creed  of  the  new  and  greater  patriotism — 
"above  all  nations  is  humanity."] 

Hence  the  new  patriot  will  loyally  support  all  movements  for 
the  internationalizing  of  the  world.  He  will  especially  be  faithful 
to  the  efforts  to  complete  the  machinery  of  international  justice 
at  The  Hague.  He  will  discountenance  and  oppose  all  reaction- 
ary policies  which  would  mean  infidelity  to,  and  the  thwarting  of, 
the  Hague  movement.  He  will  go  in  for  less  hate  and  more  ser- 
vice, for  less  "world-politics"  and  more  world  organization. 
Macaulay's  noble  verse  some  day  will  be  re-written.  In  place  of 
his: 

Then  none  was  for  a  party; 

Then  all  were  for  the  State; 
Then  the  great  man  helped  the  poor 

And  the  poor  man  loved  the  great; 

Some  new  Macaulay  will  be  able  to  sing: 

Now  none  are  for  a  nation, 

But  all  for  a  world-state; 
Great  lands  and  small  together 

Live  in  justice  and  not  hate. 

2.  Then  shall  it  he  possible  for  a  patriot  to  he  loyal  to  loyalty. 
Professor  Royce  in  his  admirable  little  volume,  The  Philosophy 
of  Loyalty,  shows  that  in  war-time  one  man's  loyalty  clashes  with 
the  loyalty  of  the  citizen  in  the  hostile  state.     This  is  the  moral 


466  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

condemnation  of  the  war  system.  Patriotism  in  an  internation- 
alized world  will  harmonize  and  unify  these  competitive  loyalties. 
Then  shall  it  be  possible  to  apply  Kant's  rule  to  citizenship: 
"Act  so  that  ths  immediate  motive  of  thy  will  may  become  a 
universal  rule  for  all  intelligent  beings."  In  the  not  distant  future 
it  will  be  commonplace  for  instructors  of  children  to  teach  that 
the  true  patriotism  is  that  which  will  form  a  fraternal  bond  be- 
tween the  nations  and  strengthen  their  loyalty  to  the  world  state. 

3.  The  new  patriotism  will  enable  a  man  to  he  loyal  to  morality. 
The  old  war  patriotism  oftentimes  forced  men  to  do  things  against 
their  judgment  and  convictions.  Certain  prominent  American 
statesman  protested  against  our  treatment  of  Mexico,  which  at 
last  headed  up  in  the  Mexican  War.  But  when  war  was  once 
declared,  their  protest  ceased  and  they  contributed  their  sons  to 
the  army  of  conquest.  Now,  as  a  New  England  divine  pointed 
out,  a  thing  which  was  wrong  for  statesmen  up  to  1846,  and  wrong 
after  1848,  could  not  have  been  right  from  1846  to  1848.  (Theo- 
dore Parker). 

The  old  war  patriotism  forced  men  and  nations  to  violate  all 
the  higher  laws  of  kindness  and  brotherly  love  to  which  man's 
highest  allegiance  is  due.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  today  empha- 
sis is  laid  chiefly  on  the  financial,  economic  and  biological  argu- 
ments against  war,  nevertheless  it  still  remains  true  that  its  chief 
condemnation  lies  in  the  moral  ruin  which  it  produces.  Fortu- 
nately the  new  internationalism  is  leading  us  on  to  a  broader 
patriotism  in  a  warless  world-family,  so  that  it  shall  be  no  longer 
necessary  for  a  man  to  separate  his  patriotism  from  his  prayer  life. 
More  and  more  it  is  becoming  possible  to  be  a  patriot  and  at  the 
same  time  to  be  loyal  to  one's  highest  moral  convictions. 

Little  by  little  a  new  type  of  citizen  and  patriot  is  being  evolved, 
namely  the  socialized  individual.  Now  once  let  a  man  become 
socialized  and  it  is  then  forever  impossible  to  get  him  to  hark 
back  to  the  old  patriotism  of  hate.  To  such  a  temptation  the 
socialized  patriot  replies  in  the  noble  words  of  Charles  Sumner: 
''Man  was  made  to  love  his  neighbor  and  not  to  despise  him.  I 
detest  the  words  of  Dr.  Johnson  who  boasted  of  loving  'a  good 
hater.'     I  like  the  man  who  loves  his   neighbor.     A  favorable 


SEALS  467 

appreciation  of  the  character  and  position  of  nations  and  individ- 
uals exercises  the  best  influence."  Or  he  replies  in  the  words  of 
one  of  our  New  England  poets : 

We  owe  allegiance  to  the  State,  but  deeper,  truer,  more 
To  the  sympathies  that  rise  and  burn,  within  our  spirits'  core. 
Our  country  claims  our  fealty,  we  grant  it  so,  but  then 
Before  men  made  us  citizens,  great  nature  made  us  men. 

It  is  to  this  type  of  patriotism  that  social  evolution  is  carrying 
us  forward.  The  industrial  and  economic  and  political  necessi- 
ties of  men  are  irresistibly  driving  us  on  to  a  larger  patriotism  than 
that  of  selfish  provincialism,  hate  and  military  spread-eagleism 
which  has  too  long  cursed  the  world. 

IV.  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  DREAM  OF  BRAVE  DREAMERS 

This  evolution  which  history  makes  so  evident  enables  us  to 
see  that  the  dream  of  brave  dreamers  is  being  fulfilled. 

I.  Great  men,  in  all  the  centuries,  have  dreamed  of  world  or- 
ganization and  brotherhood.  Cosmopolitanism  was  a  part  of 
the  creed  of  the  Stoics  (Eucken:  Problem  of  Human  Life,  91-2). 
Horace  declared  that  "the  brave  man  is  at  home  in  every  land, 
as  fishes  in  the  ocean"  {Modern  Eloquence  VII,  176).  Marcus 
Aurelius  likened  nations  to  members  of  the  body,  saying:  "We 
are  made  for  cooperation  like  feet,  like  hands,  like  eyelids,  like 
the  rows  of  the  upper  and  lower  teeth.  To  act  against  one  another, 
then,  is  contrary  to  nature"  (Marcus  Aurelius:  Thoughts,  95, 
175)'  Jesus,  though  of  Jewish  descent,  rose  above  the  narrow 
nationalism  of  his  times  and  people.  As  Dr.  Darby  says,  "Jesus, 
though  of  Jewish  descent.  .  .  .  was  not  a  Jew — but  just  a 
man,  untrammelled  by  race  limitations  or  prejudices,  unwarped  by 
so-called  patriotism"  (Darby:  The  Christ  Method  of  Peace  Making, 
63).  It  was  Bolingbroke  who  declared  that  "a  wise  man  looks 
upon  himself  as  a  citizen  of  the  world;  and  when  you  ask  him  where 
his  country  lies,  points,  like  Anexagoras,  with  his  finger  to  the 
heavens  "  {Masterpieces  of  Literature,  Ancient  and  Modern,  III, 
1477).     Over  his  door,  during  his  exile,  Edmund  Ludlow  wrote. 


468  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

Every  land  is  my  fatherland 
For  all  lands  are  my  Father's. 

(See  Walsh:  Moral  Damage  of  War,  404.) 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  headed  the  very  first  number  of  his 
Liberator  with  this  motto: 

Our  country  is  the  World 
Our  countrymen  are  mankind. 

(Crosby:  Garrison,  the  Non-Resistant,  15.) 

Mr.  Emerson,  who  possessed  a  world-soul,  if  any  man  ever  did, 
wrote:  ''We  have  no  sympathy  with  that  boyish  egotism, 
hoarse  with  cheering  for  one  side,  for  one  state,  for  one  town; 
the  right  patriotism  consists  in  the  delight  which  springs  from 
contributing  our  peculiar  and  legitimate  advantages  to  the  bene- 
fit of  humanity"  {Emerson,  XI,  328).  Elihu  Burritt,  setting 
himself  to  prepare  a  lecture  on  the  anatomy  of  the  earth,  was 
struck  by  the  interdependence  of  the  various  nations.  It  was  this 
which  lead  him  into  the  peace  movement.  His  lecture  grew  into 
a  peace  lecture,  and  thenceforth  he  became  a  prophet  of  world 
citizenship  (Northend:  Elihu  Burritt,  23).  Professor  Bovio 
describes  the  internationalized  patriot  as  "the  man  of  the  future;" 
Jules  Simon,  as  "the  patriot  of  humanity"  (C oncer d,]sin\ia.ry  191 1, 
5).  When  society  is  completely  internationalized,  and  individ- 
uals thoroughly  socialized,  then  shall  the  noble  prophecy  of 
Tennyson  be  fulfilled: 

When  the  schemes  and  all  the  systems, 

Kingdoms  and  republics  fall 
Something  kindlier,  higher,  hoUer, — 

All  for  each  and  each  for  all, 
(See  Tennyson:  Enoch  Arden.) 

These  are  the  dreams  of  some  of  the  dreamers.  It  is  only  a 
question  of  a  comparatively  short  time,  now,  when  the  dream  of 
a  world-state  and  a  pan-human  patriotism  will  be  commonplace 
actuality.  In  his  day  when  internationalism  is  being  consum- 
mated, as  never  before,  it  is  "bliss  to  be  alive"  (See  Dawson: 


MAGRUDER  469 

Makers  of  English  Poetry,  45-46).  K,  as  Horace  declared,  "a 
pleasant  and  a  noble  thing  it  is  to  die  for  fatherland"  (Horace: 
The  Odes,  Old  Roman  Character  (Bohn  edition,  46)  how  much 
nobler  and  sweeter  and  more  glorious  it  is  to  put  in  a  life  for  an 
internationalized  humanity! 

Chairman  Hammond:  The  last  speaker  of  today  will  discuss 
peace  as  a  preventive  of  poverty.  I  have  the  pleasure  and 
honor  of  introducing  to  you  Mr.  J.  W.  Magruder,  secretary  of  the 
Federated  Charities  of  Baltimore. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Magruder:  Mr.  Marburg,  in  his  letter  inviting  me 
to  speak  upon  this  subject,  enclosed  a  circular  letter  containing 
a  statement  which,  to  those  who  are  uninformed,  must  be  noth- 
ing short  of  astounding;  that,  "for  the  fiscal  year  ending  July 
I,  1 9 10,  the  United  States  expended  on  the  navy,  the  army  and 
on  pensions,  which  are  the  result  of  past  wars,  $447,620,723 
constituting  68  per  cent  of  the  ordinary  disbursements  of  the 
government,  including  postoflfice  deficiency."  This  means  nearly 
five  dollars  per  capita  for  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the 
United  States,  Alaska,  the  Philippines  and  all  our  colonial  pos- 
sessions. It  means  for  every  family  of  five  an  annual  tax  of 
nearly  twenty-five  dollars.  It  means  for  the  average  wage-earner 
with  a  family  of  six  or  seven  a  tax  of  thirty  or  thirty-five  dollars 
or  more. 

Nor  does  this  tell  the  whole  tale;  for  the  enormous  expenditure 
of  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  nation's  income  goes  into  an  abso- 
lutely non-productive,  I  need  not  say  destructive,  business;  the 
men  who  are  engaged  in  it  are  or  should  be  the  natural  bread- 
winners of  families;  and  yet  every  one  of  them  is  a  consumer  and 
not  a  producer  of  wealth. 

The  only  inevitable  effect  of  this  superimposed  burden  upon  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  nation  is  to  depress  below  the  poverty  line  and 
sink  to  the  level  of  dependency  that  marginal  contingent  of  the 
population  which,  but  for  this  fixed  charge  upon  their  narrow  in- 
come, would  escape  the  sting  of  having  to  accept  alms  and  them- 
selves becoming  an  additional  burden  upon  the  already  burdened 
community. 


470  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

That  the  contingent  of  population  on  this  border  line  is  by  no 
means  small  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  in  a  city  as  unusually 
prosperous  as  Baltimore  undoubtedly  is,  there  has  been  for  the 
last  three  years  and  is  likely  to  be  for  some  time  to  come,  an  aver- 
age of  one  in  twenty  of  the  population  in  such  straitened  circum- 
stances that  one-third  of  them  are  in  need  of  material  relief  and 
two-thirds  barely  escape  from  dependency.  This  too  in  an  era 
which,  as  Professor  Patten  has  recently  pointed  out,  furnishes  a 
new  basis  for  civilization  in  that  it  is  characterized  not  by  deficit, 
but  by  surplus. 

In  other  words,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  in 
these  United  States  who  are  suffering  from  underfeeding,  over- 
crowding, ill-health,  debility,  inefiiciency,  discouragement,  fail- 
ure— all  because  of  an  army  and  navy  consuming  $447,620,723 
annually  of  the  people's  wealth. 

This  is  not  a  matter  of  dollars  or  cents,  it  is  a  matter  of  flesh  and 
blood;  it  is  a  human  concern;  it  affects  women  and  children  as 
well  as  men;  it  affects  the  poor  vastly  more  than  the  rich  or  well- 
to-do.  To  narrow  it  down  to  the  tax-payer  is  to  overlook  the 
fact  that  the  taxes  of  this  country  are  paid  not  by  the  taxpayer 
technically  so-called;  only  the  smallest  fraction  of  the  burden 
falls  upon  him.  The  real  incidence  of  taxation  is  upon  every 
man,  woman  and  child  who  eats  a  mouthful  of  food  or  wears  a 
stitch  of  clothing  or  uses  a  stick  of  furniture  or  lives  under  a  roof 
or  lives  at  all.  Even  a  nursing  baby  has  to  pay  tribute;  and  to 
this  exaction  is  chargeable  some  of  our  excessively  high  mortality 
rate.  The  ultimate  consumer  pays  the  bills  either  in  the  coin  of 
the  realm  or  in  his  own  life  blood. 

How  is  it  that  we  have  been  so  long  coming  to  this  Peace  Con- 
ference and  to  the  judicial  settlement  of  our  international  dif- 
ferences? Is  it  not  largely  because  our  war  taxes  are  indirect? 
"  My  people  perish  for  lack  of  knowledge."  The  man  in  the  streets 
does  not  know  he  is  paying  these  bills.  Even  intelligent  wage- 
earners,  the  bread-winner  with  a  family  to  support,  does  not  realize 
how  much  of  his  money,  if  any  of  it,  is  going  into  the  nation's 
war  chest.  Were  it  a  direct  tax  upon  us,  there  would  be  101,100,- 
000  thoroughly  aroused  Americans  praying  with  their  faces  to- 


MAGRUDER  47 1 

wards  this  Baltimore  Peace  Conference  and  enlisting  for  the  war 
against  war. 

Let  us  turn  on  the  light,  let  us  educate  our  children.  Let  them 
see  what  it  all  costs,  not  merely  in  treasure  but  in  human  life  and 
blood  even  in  piping  times  of  peace.  Let  them  come  to  under- 
stand that  to  disarm  means  to  transform  an  army  of  consumers 
into  producers  of  wealth.  It  means  the  deliverance  of  one  more 
entire  stratum  of  the  population  from  poverty  and  dependence, 
and  the  permanent  enlargement  of  the  area  of  self-dependence 
and  self-respect.  It  means  more  and  better  food,  clothing,  hous- 
ing, education,  leisure  for  everybody — it  means  life,  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness  for  more  of  the  poor. 

Chairman  Hammond:  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  the  sessions  of 
the  Third  National  Peace  Congress  are  at  an  end,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  we 
are  now 

ADJOURNED 


PROGEAM  OF  MEETING  FOR  SCHOOLS 

Preceding  the  regular  sessions  of  the  Third  American  Peace 
Congress,  peace  meetings  were  held  for  the  teachers  and  students 
of  the  public  schools  of  Baltimore.  At  the  first  meeting,  held  on 
Tuesday,  May  2,  at  3  p.m.j  in  the  Assembly  hall  of  the  Western 
High  School,  Hon.  M.  Bates  Stephens,  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction,  presided.  After  a  few  words  of  explana- 
tion, he  introduced  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  of  Boston,  who  de- 
livered the  following  address: 

ADDRESS   TO  TEACHERS  OF   MARYLAND 

LUCIA  AMES  MEAD  OF  BOSTON 

The  twentieth  century  child  may  be  taught  the  three  '*R's" 
in  the  same  way  as  was  the  nineteenth  century  child,  but  if  he  is 
to  be  fitted  for  twentieth  century  politics  and  business,  he  must 
be  tauglit  literature,  geography,  history  and  patriotism  by  a 
teacher  who  comprehends  the  new  internationalism. 

Since  the  last  generation,  business  and  world  politics  have  been 
revolutionized  as  much  as  medicine  and  agriculture  and  sanita- 
tion. The  teacher  who  is  in  touch  with  the  history  that  is  in  the 
making  and  who  has  the  spirit  of  internationalism  is  alone  fitted 
to  lead  today.  He  must  be  in  advance  of  the  text  book.  No 
book  records  the  most  significant  word  uttered  for  a  decade  by 
the  chief  executive  of  a  great  nation — that  word  uttered  by  Presi- 
dent Taft,  declaring  that  all  difficulties  between  nations,  includ- 
ing those  involving  national  honor  should  be  settled  by  peaceable 
methods.  Only  one  text  book  that  I  know — Meyer's  Mediaeval 
and  Modern  History  chronicles  under  the  chapter,  "The  World 
State,"  the  most  significant  facts  in  modern  history. 

The  average  teacher,  overburdened  with  examination  papers 
and  all  the  new  requirements  of  manual  training,  physical  culture 

472 


MEAD 


473 


and  nature  study,  looks  askance  at  any  new  subject  that  is  im- 
posed on  the  crowded  curriculum.  He  fears  that  we  are  doing 
nothing  well  in  consequence  of  congestion.  Let  it  be  understood 
that  what  is  needed  is  not  more  work,  but  work  modified  by  a 
different  point  of  view  and  different  spirit,  which,  illuminating 
the  lesson  in  history  or  literature  or  geography,  shall  inspire 
the  feelings  of  the  Latin  poet  who  said:  "I  count  nothing  human 
foreign  to  me,"  a  spirit  which  shall  banish  caste,  race  prejudice, 
class  prejudice,  national  prejudice  and  enable  the  child  to  deal 
justly  with  all  mankind. 

An  honorable,  national  self-interest  must  be  a  great  incentive 
in  the  new  movement  to  justly  formulate  national  interdepend- 
ence. The  twentieth  century  youth  who  is  putting  money  into 
Siberian  railroads,  Peruvian  mines.  South  African  bridges,  or 
who  will  be  employed  in  filling  orders  for  reapers  and  ploughs  in 
Russia,  for  plumbing  in  Turkey  and  electric  engines  in  Persia  and 
China,  must  be  taught  that  his  prosperity  depends  on  peace  and 
peace  depends  on  justice  and  justice  depends  on  farsighted  organ- 
ization and  treaty  provision.  He  must  learn  the  commerical  value 
of  imagination  and  sympathy  as  well  as  its  higher  ethical  value. 
In  the  lowest  grammar  grades,  as  soon  as  he  can  study  what  our 
"little  cousins"  are  doing  in  the  Philippines  or  in  Holland  or 
Greece,  he  must  read  stories  that  develop  his  power  to  put  him- 
self "in  the  other  fellow's  place."  The  Golden  Rule  would  be 
oftener  applied  were  our  complacent  eyes  able  to  see  how  the  world 
looks  to  the  man  with  the  black  skin,  or  brown  skin,  or  yellow 
skin,  or  to  the  man  of  our  own  Caucasian  race  who,  driven  by 
military  oppression  in  the  Old  World,  finds  refuge  in  our  shores 
and  sends  his  little  daughter  to  a  Triangle  shirt-waist  factory  to 
earn  her  bread.  German  success  in  obta'ning  trade  in  South 
America  is  due  to  that  power  of  imagination  and  shrewd  sympathy 
which  studies  the  customer's  language  and  gives  him  what  he 
wants  when  and  as  he  wants  it.  Our  failure  thus  far  in  those 
regions  is  largely  due  to  assuming  that  our  way  of  doing  is  good 
enough  for  other  people,  whether  they  like  it  or  not.  Our  busi- 
ness men  and  drummers  lack  the  requisite  imagination  and  sym- 
pathy to  make  the  success  they  might. 


474  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

War  depends  upon  the  psychology  of  nations.  What  are  those 
people  thinking  in  the  Mikado's  or  Kaiser's  or  Tsar's  capital 
and  how  many  American  militarists  or  men  eager  for  contracts 
are  going  to  foment  mysterious  war  scares?  How  many  credulous 
readers  can  we  count  on  believing  these  war  scares  valid?  That 
is  the  main  problem,  not  how  many  dreadnoughts  have  we  or 
they.  As  a  nation  fears  or  suspects,  so  is  its  burden  of  military 
taxation.  As  the  boy  stores  up  impressions,  prejudices,  sympa- 
thies, so  the  man  legislates  and  the  nation  makes  friends  or  foes. 
The  responsibility  of  the  teacher  was  never  so  great  to  do  what 
both  church  and  home  often  neglect — to  inspire  a  friendly  instead 
of  a  suspicious  attitude  toward  the  world. 

Patriotism  may  be  so  mistaught  as  to  develop  the  worst  in- 
stead of  the  best  impulses.  It  may  encourage  arrogance  and 
pride  in  our  country  instead  of  humble  readiness  to  serve  it,  which 
is  the  only  test  of  patriotism.  It  may  be  so  taught  as  to  distort 
the  lessons  of  history  and  forbid  seeing  any  fault  in  our  past. 
Every  young  patriot  should  learn  that,  in  the  words  of  General 
Grant,  who  fought  in  our  Mexican  war,  "It  was  one  of  the  most 
unjust  wars  ever  fought  by  a  strong  people  against  a  weak  one." 
Love  of  country  like  love  of  our  brother  must  not  imply  blindness 
to  defects.  Let  every  child  learn  that  patriotism  has  no  more  to 
do  with  a  gun  than  with  a  broom  and  that  Colonel  Waring,  re- 
ducing New  York's  death  rate  15,000  with  his  brooms,  did  a  far 
greater  service  for  his  country  than  if  he  had  left  as  many  of  the 
enemy  on  a  battlefield. 

Every  child  should  learn,  when  studying  the  history  of  the 
Revolution,  that  it  was  a  war  between  the  progressive  and  retro- 
gressive forces  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  He  should  be  taught 
that  all  English  text  books  teach  admiration  for  Washington  and 
criticism  of  George  III.  Had  this  been  known  in  1895,  when  a 
Venezuela  boundary  line  was  the  occasion  of  a  week  of  belliger- 
ent talk  on  our  part,  it  might  have  saved  us  the  one  hundred  mil- 
lion dollars  in  foregin  investments  which  it  was  said  our  little 
war-scare  cost  us.  Generations  had  grown  up  here  crudely  con- 
sidering Englishmen  as  hereditary  foes  and  politely  refraining  from 
mentioning  July  4th  in  their  presence  as  if  they  were  still  sensitive. 
Such  ignorance,  due  to  bad  teaching,  is  costly. 


MEAD 


475 


The  teacher  must  know  far  more  than  he  can  definitely  teach 
of  internationalism,  if  the  school  is  to  have  the  right  atmosphere 
and  his  pupils  get  the  right  point  of  view  that  will  stand  them  in 
stead  when  national  hysteria  prevails.  If  possible  he  should  read 
two  books, — David  Starr  Joidsin'sThe  Human  Harvest — a  complete 
refutation  of  the  fallacy  that  War  promotes  virility,  and  The 
Great  Illusion,  by  Norman  Angell,  an  epoch-making  book  published 
in  many  tongues  which  presentes  the  new  economic  facts  that 
when  realized  will  end  forever  all  attempt  at  foreign  war. 

The  main  thing  is  to  secure  a  teacher  whose  patriotism  will 
put  conscience  and  enthusiasm  into  teaching  those  character- 
building  lessons  of  infinitely  more  value  to  every  child  than  any 
technical  booklore  the  schools  can  give  him.  In  the  primary 
grades,  stories  of  knights  fighting  dragons,  of  firemen  fighting 
flames,  of  heroes  saving  life  should  be  substituted  for  tales  of 
wars.  Later,  in  history  classes,  wars  must  be  studied,  but  if  the 
emphasis  is  laid  on  causes  and  cost  and  results  of  wars  and  not  on 
campaigns;  if  copies  of  Verestchagin's  mournful  pictures  of  war 
and  clear  statement  of  its  squalor  and  horrors  are  presented  briefly, 
the  glamor  of  the  "Splendid  Charge"  will  not  dim  the  child's 
insight  into  the  true  nature  of  war.  Statistics  of  huge  losses  mean 
nothing  to  immature  minds.  A  few  pathetic  or  realistic  stories 
of  individual  loss  are  more  impressive.  But  some  faint  concep- 
tion of  the  appalling  cost  of  armaments  may  be  given  the  arith- 
metic class  by  setting  them  to  figure  out  how  many  schools  like 
theirs  could  be  built  at  the  cost  of  one  short-lived  dreadnought, 
costing  $12,500,000,  or  how  many  children  could  have  suits  of 
clothes  for  one  shot  costing  $1700  at  target  practice. 

May  I  now  offer  a  few  practical  suggestions? 

Firstt  Give  clear-cut  definitions  of  those  words  about  which 
there  is  much  confused  thought  even  in  editorial  chairs  and  naval 
colleges.  Do  not  let  pupils  define  war  so  as  to  put  it  in  the  same 
category  with  wholesome  struggle,  as  do  Captain  Mahan  and 
many'other  clever  writers.  Show  how  there  is  no  war  in  the  ani- 
mal world,  only  occasional,  impromptu  duels  and  getting  dinner 
by  killing  other  animals  for  food.  War  is  always  the  work  of 
human  beings,  organized  and  authorized  by  certain  men  who  do 


476  THIRD   AMERICAN    PEACE    CONGRESS 

not  themselves  fight.  Man  deliberately  practises  to  learn  the 
art  of  killing  in  far  more  fiendish  fashion  than  anything  devised 
by  sharks  or  wolves.  Man  is  the  only  creature  who  practises 
systematically  in  order  to  destroy  his  own  kind. 

Second:  Refute  the  fallacy  that  *'  Government  rests  on  force." 
All  governments  use  force,  but  no  government,  even  a  tribal 
government,  rests  so  much  on  force  as  on  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. The  weakest  government,  like  the  Tsar's  requires  the 
most  force  to  bolster  it  up.  A  government  like  ours  rests  on  the 
broad  basis  of  the  peoples'  will  and  needs  but  little  force  to  but- 
tress it.  A  republic  rests  on  courts,  on  law,  on  schools,  on  means 
of  communication,  on  a  free  press,  on  money,  on  police,  and  on 
the  peoples'  will.  Our  army  of  school  teachers  is  doing  more  to 
perpetuate  our  republic,  by  defending  it  from  the  rule  of  an  illit- 
erate mob,  than  are  all  our  army  and  navy. 

Third:  Sharply  distinguish  between  war  within  nations  and 
war  between  nations.  Hague  Courts  and  Conferences  cannot 
affect  Mexican  rebellions,  though  they  are  sure  in  time  to  end  war 
between  nations  as  completely  as  our  Supreme  Court  has  since  its 
beginning  prevented  any  war  between  one  State  and  another 
State,  and  this  without  any  change  of  human  nature.  Show  how 
peace  through  organization  can  be  obtained  long  before  murder, 
intemperance,  vice,  poverty,  and  ignorance,  deep  rooted  in  hered- 
ity and  social  conditions,  can  disappear.  It  is  the  most  hopeful 
of  all  reforms.  International  war  must  end  a  thousand  years 
before  we  can  talk  of  a  millennium.  It  is  a  prerequisite  to  all 
advance  in  civilization. 

Fourth:  Emphasize  justice.  Differentiate  clearly  between  the 
kinds  of  force  which  aim  to  secure  justice,  and  the  kinds  that  do 
not.  Police  and  militia  alone  aim  at  justice  and  use  the  minimum 
of  force  to  get  criminals  to  court  or  to  disperse  rioters.  Rival 
armies  and  navies,  on  the  other  hand,  never  aim  to  secure  jus- 
tice, never  take  any  one  to  court  and  are  but  the  tools  of  nations 
engaged  in  gigantic  duelling.  They  achieve  justice  only  acci- 
dentally, incidentally  and  then  with  a  long  train  of  injustices 
behind  them.  There  never  was  a  war  that  was  just  upon  both 
sides. 


MEAD 


477 


Besides  giving  clear-cut  definitions  let  me  suggest  your  giving 
certain  definite  facts  that  should  be  taught  and  memorized. 

First:  Show  that  in  our  one  hundred  and  twenty-two  years  of 
history  our  Republic  has  never  yet  been  attacked.  We  began 
our  war  with  England  in  1812,  the  war  with  Mexico  and  the  Span- 
ish war  and  it  was  an  American  who  fired  the  first  gun  upon  a 
Filippino,  after  the  real  first  gun  had  been  fired  from  Washington 
in  December,  1898,  in  a  message  which  General  Otis,  knowing  its 
dangerous  import,  in  vain  attempted  to  delay.  We  hear  much  of 
"danger  of  invasion"  and  attack,  though  we  are  strong  and  vastly 
more  self-sufficient  than  we  were  a  generation  since  when  we  had 
a  small  navy  and  no  fear.  The  more  dreadnoughts  the  nations 
build,  the  more  their  panic  about  attack. 

Second:  Teach  in  simple  outline  the  result  of  modern  banking 
and  investment.  Under  the  new  conditions  no  nation  can  con- 
quer another  and  not  lose  more  than  it  could  gain.  This  was  not 
always  so,  but  modern  investments  and  banking,  which  depend 
so  largely  upon  credit  and  confidence,  have  altered  all  former 
conditions.  Should  a  German  army  ever  invade  England  (Von 
Moltke  said  he  knew  three  ways  of  getting  in,  but  not  one  of  get- 
ting an  army  out)  and  should  destroy  the  Bank  of  England  and 
soldiers  confiscate  its  gold,  a  "run"  would  presently  follow  on 
every  bank  in  Great  Britain  and  they  would  suspend  payments. 
Merchants  the  world  over  would  face  ruin  and  call  in  their  credits 
in  Germany  and  thus  undermine  German  finance,  German  trade 
would  be  paralyzed  and  a  thousand  marks  lost  for  every  one  con- 
fiscated. If  twenty-five  years  ago  the  rumor  of  a  probable  failure 
of  the  Barings  created  consternation  and  was  a  theme  for  special 
prayers  in  American  churches,  how  vastly  more  would  the  much 
talked  of  war  between  Germany  and  England  bring  chaos  on 
Wall  Street  today  and  affect  every  village  in  the  land.  That  war 
can  never  be  permitted  if  for  no  other  reason  than  for  the  business 
world  it  spells  disaster.  The  thought  of  it  would  never  have 
gained  ground,  had  the  business  world  not  been  under  the  obsession 
of  antiquated  notions  of  economics.  It  repeats  naively  an  old 
phraseology  about  defense,  which  today  does  not  apply. 

The  youngest  child  should   be    taught  Franklin's  adage   that 


478  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

"The  poorest  thing  you  can  do  with  a  customer  is  to  knock  him 
on  the  head."  We  are  all  customers  and  sellers  today  and  the 
world  is  our  market.  We  can  no  more  separate  our  success  from 
others'  success  than  hand  and  foot  or  lungs  and  heart  can  ignore 
each  other.  Trade  does  not  follow  the  flag  as  every  economist 
knows.  England's  huge  navy  does  not  avail  to  sell  one  more 
screw  driver.  Her  carrying  trade  per  capita  is  hardly  more  than 
one-third  of  Norway's.  She  has  become  land  poor  in  taking,  with- 
in a  generation,  as  much  territory  and  population  as  that  of  the 
whole  United  States.  She  must  police  most  of  this,  yet  gets  not 
enough  revenue  to  pay  for  the  policing.  No  foreign  nation  can 
gain  anything  today  by  conquest  of  colonies,  and  no  people  in  a 
protectionist  country  can  gain  by  a  war  indemnity.  Preposter- 
ous as  it  may  seem,  the  French  indemnity  demoralized  Germany 
and  brought  financial  depression  from  1872  to  1880.  Ten  years 
after  Sedan,  France  was  more  prosperous  than  Germany. 

Third:  In  view  of  the  wanton,  vicious  talk  so  prevalent  and 
persistent  about  danger  from  Japan,  older  classes  should  be  ex- 
plicitly taught  the  following  facts: 

Japan  is  crippled  by  a  crushing  taxation  for  past  war.  With 
two  bloody  wars  within  a  generation,  she  has  no  desire  for  another. 
She  has  her  hands  full  with  her  new  acquisitions,  Formosa  and 
Korea,  which  require  guarding  and  development.  She  has  just 
put  forty  million  dollars  into  railroads  in  Korea.  Should  she 
embroil  herself  with  us,  she  would  lose  her  greatest  trade,  which 
is  with  us,  and  expose  herself  to  Chinese  and  Russian  aggression 
in  the  rear  and  lose  these  two  possessions.  The  Japanese  are  now 
ambitious  to  develop  intensively  and  not  be  diverted  by  outside 
matters.  With  their  new  manufacturing  interests  they  could 
sustain  twice  their  present  population.  Moreover  the  Japanese 
nation  has  always  kept  its  faith  with  us;  it  looks  to  us  as  teacher 
and  guide  and  its  people  are  sincerely  friendly  to  us,  as  one  hun- 
dred missionaries  who  have  long  been  there  recently  testified. 
Ambassador  Luke  Wright  well  said:  "The  talk  of  war  with  Japan 
is  not  even  respectable  nonsense."  It  is  deliberately  and  mali- 
ciously manufactured  by  certain  special  interests.  It  has  cost  us 
upwards  of  eight  hundred  million  dollars  to  get  and  hold  the  Phil- 


MEAD 


479 


ippines,  though  the  natives  have  paid  all  the  cost  of  their  education 
and  civic  government.  For  Japan  to  try  to  wrest  them  from  us 
would  cost  vastly  more  and  would  mean  national  suicide,  and  this 
her  astute  statesmen  well  know.  Moreover,  if  she  had  them  they 
would  be  a  costly  burden  to  her  as  they  are  to  us.  It  is  evident 
that  special  private  interests  are  fomenting  the  iniquitous  rumors 
of  danger  from  Japan  and  that  a  detective  should  ferret  out  the 
origin  of  our  war-scares. 

Fourth:  Show  how  our  only  dangers  are  from  within.  In 
all  our  three  foreign  wars  we  lost  less  than  fifteen  thousand  men — 
one-tenth  the  number  killed  annually  by  tuberculosis!  In  four 
recent  years  of  peace  we  lost  sixty  thousand  more  citizens  by  acci- 
dent than  were  killed  in  our  four  years  of  civil  war  and  last  year 
we  burned  up  eight  times  as  much  property  as  was  burned  in  all 
Europe. 

Fifth:     Present  the  prime  facts  which  pupils  need  to  know  con- 
cerning the  epoch-making  achievements  of  the  two  Hague  Confer- 
ences.    Picture  that  surprising  call  from  the  Tsar  in  August,  1898, 
to  the  twenty-six  nations  that  had  ambassadors  at  his  court  and 
his  appeal  for  a  limitation  of  the  stupendous  increase  in  arma- 
ments, which  were  "bringing  about  the  very  cataclysm  they  were 
designed  to  avert."     Describe  that  meeting  of  one  hundred  rep- 
resentatives with  fifty  attaches  in  the  "House  in  the  Wood"  at 
The  Hague  on  May  18,  1899;  of  the  work  in  those  committees 
behind  locked  doors;  of  America's  happy  influence  in  removing 
Germany's  obstruction  to  progress;  of  the  social  daily  intercourse 
which  made  friends  of  these  men  from  China  to  Austria,  who 
spoke  in  the  official  language,  French.     Tell  of  the  great  result, 
the  agreement  for  a  Permanent  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  for  whose 
building  Mr.  Carnegie  gave  $1,500,000;  of  the  provision  for  In- 
quiry which  shortly  after  prevented  war  between  Russian  and 
England  over  the  North  Sea  attack  on  English  fishing  vessels; 
of  the  third  provision  for  Mediation  which  enabled  President 
Roosevelt  to  mediate  between  Russia  and  Japan  and  end  their 
bloody  conflict.     Describe  the  Second  Hague   Conference,   first 
called  by  President  Roosevelt  in  1905,  and  convened  by  the  Tsar 
in  1907,  to  which  forty-six  nations,  practically  all  the  civilized 


480  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

world — were  invited.  Show  how  it  prohibited  bombardment 
of  unfortified  places,  throwing  bombs  from  balloons,  removed 
various  barbarities  of  war,  prevented  war  for  collection  of  debts 
and  recommended  the  establishment  of  a  Prize  Court  and  a  court 
of  Arbitral  Justice,  which  is  to  have  fifteen  judges,  and  will  be 
opened  to  settle  questions  by  international  law,  as  soon  as  a 
method  of  selecting  these  judges  can  be  agreed  on. 

Show  how  this  will  supplement  the  existing  Arbitration  Tri- 
bunal with  its  panel  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  judges  from 
which  five  are  chosen  to  repair  to  The  Hague  whenever  a  case  is 
tried.  President  Roosevelt  and  President  Diaz  sent  the  first 
case  to  this  in  much  less  time  than  it  took  our  United  States  Su- 
preme Court  to  receive  its  first  case. 

Show  that  over  one  hundred  arbitration  treaties  of  limited 
scope  have  been  signed  in  the  last  eight  years,  twenty-four  of 
which  have  been  with  the  United  States.  The  first  Peace  Society 
in  the  world  was  started  in  New  York  in  1815.  In  1915,  on  the 
centennial  of  that  event,  the  third  Hague  Conference  will  open. 
Two  years  before  that  in  1913,  its  programme  will  be  agreed  on. 
Upon  the  work  which  can  be  done  between  191 1  and  1913  will 
depend  the  scope  of  that  programme  and  probably  the  wasting  or 
the  saving  of  upwards  of  several  thousand  million  dollars  of  the 
hard-earned  taxes  of  the  world. 

What  can  our  country  do  to  make  191 5  mark  an  enormous  step 
forward  in  human  history?  First  of  all,  ask  for  complete  arbitra- 
tion treaties  with  all  nations  and  then,  beginning  with  this  Con- 
gress, refuse  until  191 5  to  build  more  battleships.  This  will  not 
mean  disarmament  or  even  reduction  of  armaments,  but  the  halt- 
ing of  an  increase  in  armaments  by  the  one  nation  that  can  afford 
to  lead.  If  this  saving  of  two  battleships  this  one  year  alone 
and  their  cost  of  running  during  the  next  ten  years,  which  amounts 
to  about  forty-five  million  dollars,  were  put  into  a  peace  budget, 
providing  annual  interchange  of  visits  of  editors  and  legislators 
beyond  seas,  into  scholarships  for  the  future  leaders  of  the  Orient; 
into  translations,  medical  missionaries,  into  teachers  and  to  giving 
friendly  help  where  plague  and  famine  are  driving  men  and  women 
to  despair,  is  it  not  certain  that  we  should  do  vastly  more  to  de- 


VAN    SICKLE  481 

fend  ourselves  from  a  conceivable  "yellow  peril,"  to  dispel  sus- 
picion from  Latin  Americans  of  our  intervention,  and  to  secure 
friendly  treatment  in  Europe,  than  if  we  spent  those  colossal 
sums  on  steel  and  dynamite! 

The  teacher's  function  is  to  show  the  moral  of  the  old  fable 
as  applied  to  twentieth  century  problems  and  to  teach  the  scien- 
tific fact  that  the  genial  sun  is  more  effective  upon  a  perverse 
neighbor  than  is  the  harsh  and  bitter  wind. 

A  second  meeting  in  connection  with  the  schools  was  held  on 
Thursday,  May  4,  at  3  p.m.,  in  the  Assembly  Room  of  the  West- 
ern High  School  (for  Girls).  The  Presiding  Officer,  Dr.  James 
H.  Van  Sickle,  City  Superintendent  of  Schools  in  Baltimore,  and 
President  of  the  American  School  Peace  League,  delivered  the 
following  address: 

OPENING  REMARKS  AT  YOUNG  PEOPLE'S    MEETING 

J.    H.    VAN    SICKLE 

Young  men  and  young  women,  delegates  to  the  Third  American 
Peace  Congress,  I  have  the  honor  and  pleasure  of  welcoming  you 
to  this  meeting.  This  I  do  most  heartily.  In  your  capacity  as 
delegates,  you  represent  approximately  ninety  thousand  pupils 
in  the  public  and  private  schools  of  elementary,  secondary,  and 
collegiate  grade  in  Baltimore  City  and  County.  It  is  expected 
that  you  will  report  to  your  several  classes  a  summary  of  the  points 
made  in  the  addresses  of  the  distinguished  speakers  to  whom  you 
are  to  listen  this  afternoon. 

For  the  city  of  Baltimore,  there  can  be  no  question  that  this  is 
the  most  important  session  of  the  week.  This  is  easily  seen  when 
we  realize  that  the  attitude  of  people  toward  peace  and  war  de- 
pends upon  the  state  of  mind  of  the  people.  In  a  very  few  years, 
pupils  now  in  the  schools  of  various  grades  will  exert  a  decided 
influence  in  determining  what  the  state  of  mind  upon  this  subject 
is  to  be;  for  you  will  be  the  thoughtful  citizens  and  will  be  guiding 
the  affairs  of  the  state  and  city,  and  you  and  the  seventeen  mil- 


482  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

lions  of  Others  in  schools  throughout  the  land  will  determine  what 
the  state  of  mind  upon  this  subject  shall  be  throughout  the  coun- 
try. This  question  will  be  settled  in  the  schools.  The  boys  and 
girls  in  this  very  audience  will  be  leaders  in  bringing  about  cor- 
rect thinking  on  the  subject  of  how  disputes  may  be  settled  with- 
out resort  to  war.  Through  the  influence  of  the  schools,  twenty 
years  from  now  the  question  will  be  settled  and  will  not  be  open 
to  debate  or  doubt. 

Even  the  younger  ones  among  you  have  studied  United  States 
history  for  a  year  or  more.  You  have  read  of  the  voyages  of  dis- 
covery, of  the  colonization  of  this  country,  of  the  federation  of  the 
thirteen  colonies,  and  of  their  more  perfect  union  into  a  nation. 
Columbus,  Magellan,  Lord  Baltimore,  William  Penn,  Washington, 
Hamilton,  Jefferson,  and  other  prominent  figures  of  early  days 
seem  only  half  real  to  you,  they  were  making  history  so  long  ago; 
but  how  important  that  history  was!  More  and  more,  as  time 
goes  on,  you  will  realize  the  significance  of  the  struggles  of  those 
early  days.  It  was  by  no  means  easy,  as  you  know,  to  form  the 
original  thirteen  colonies  into  a  union.  After  they,  as  States,  had 
increased  in  number  and  had  become  more  and  more  varied  in 
their  interests,  it  was  by  no  means  easy  to  keep  them  together. 
We  rejoice  that  they  are  together  as  a  nation,  more  compact,  more 
united  than  before,  and  more  effective  in  all  the  glories  and  arts  of 
peace — and  the  glories  of  peace  are  greater  than  the  glories  of  war. 
In  the  development  of  nations,  wars  have  been  necessary;  but  the 
questions  at  issue  between  nations  are  no  longer  such  as  need  lead 
to  war.  They  are  industrial  or  commercial;  and  just  as  questions 
between  individuals  and  between  States  are  settled  in  courts  so 
questions  between  nations  are  even  now  beginning  to  be  settled 
by  a  similar  tribunal.  We  have  honored  and  shall  continue  to 
honor  the  heroes  of  righteous  wars.  But  our  future  heroes  will 
be  heroes  of  peaceful  achievement.  They  will  diminish  poverty, 
they  will  devise  means  to  stop  the  ravages  of  preventable  dis- 
ease; and  better  than  all,  they  will  devise  ways  of  preventing  the 
destruction  of  human  life  in  wars  by  putting  into  effect  plans  of 
judicial  settlement  of  questions  of  dispute.  There  is  a  world-wide 
movement  now  going  on  in  this  direction  in  which  our  own  country 


MEAD 


483 


is  taking  a  leading  part.  You  are  to  hear  about  that  movement 
this  afternoon.  It  is  history  that  is  making  right  now  in  our 
own  times.  As,  years  ago,  the  American  colonies  united  for  the 
common  good,  so  the  nations  of  the  world  are  moving  toward  such 
a  union  as  will  insure  justice  and  peace  throughout  the  world. 
As  surely  as  we  are  here  today,  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when 
there  will  be  a  world  court  to  settle  difficulties  between  nations, 
just  as  there  is  a  Supreme  Court  in  our  country  which  settles 
difficulties  between  States.  It  is  to  enable  you  to  realize  that 
just  as  in  the  days  of  Washington  and  Jefferson  momentous  steps 
were  being  taken  that  made  the  history  set  down  in  your^books, 
so  in  your  own  day — this  very  day — a  world-wide  movement  is 
in  progress  which  you  should  understand.  Three  of  the  most 
distinguished  delegates  to  the  Third  National  Peace  Congress 
are  here  to  inform  us  of  the  world  history  now  in  the  making. 

Chairman  Van  Sickle  then  introduced  Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead, 
who  delivered  an  address  on  "The  Family  of  Nations." 

THE  FAMILY  OF  NATIONS 

LUCIA   AMES    MEAD 

In  Washington's  day,  if  there  had  been  a  war  between  Russia 
and  Japan,  the  small  four-page  newspapers  in  our  sparsely  settled 
States  would  have  told  little  of  it.  Six  months  after  Port  Arthur 
had  fallen  a  slow  sailing  vessel  arriving  in  New  York  might  have 
given  the  bare  fact.  But  all  that  reporters,  photographers  and 
Red  Cross  nurses  would  now  add  to  that  would  have  been  miss- 
ing. We  should  have  had  no  commerce,  no  missionaries,  no 
money  in  Manchuria  and  consequently  little  knowledge  of  or  inter- 
est in  the  war  that  filled  its  people  with  misery  and  gloom.  Today 
all  this  has  changed — when  Mr.  Roosevelt  reaches  Central  Africa 
easier  than  Washington  could  go  to  Cincinnati.  During  the 
Russo-Japanese  war,  1200  Poles,  escaping  military  service,  ar- 
rived in  Boston  and  necessitated  the  citizens  getting  them  work 
to  keep  them  out  of  jails  and  hospitals  and  asylums.     Today, 


484  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

sooner  or  later  every  nation  is  affected  when  any  nation  suffers. 
Once,  nations  at  the  antipodes  of  each  other  were  as  independent 
as  so  many  marbles  in  a  box.  Today  they  are  like  heart  and  lungs 
and  hands  and  feet,  all  united  as  closely  by  steam  and  electricity 
as  our  bodily  members  are  by  nerves,  and  through  all,  like  red 
blood,  flows  the  world's  trade.  Nearly  every  land  has  helped  to 
make  the  food  and  clothes,  the  furniture  and  ornaments  of  our 
homes. 

Our  forty-page  newspaper  this  year  gives  us  yesterday's  news 
from  Tokio  and  Rio  Janeiro  and  New  Zealand.  Your  fathers  are 
making  reapers  to  send  to  Siberia,  iron  bridges  for  South  Africa 
and  sewing  machines  for  Egypt;  they  are  putting  money  into 
coffee  plantations  in  Brazil,  into  mines  in  Bolivia,  and  irrigation 
in  Arabia.  People  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  are  flocking  to  our 
shores.  We  are  not  only  New  England  but  New  Ireland,  New 
Germany,  New  Italy,  and  in  New  York  we  have  more  Hebrews 
than  ever  congregated  in  any  city  upon  earth.  Today  we  are 
giving  the  best  we  have,  and  alas,  also  the  worst  we  have  to  the 
black-eyed  boys  in  China  and  Japan.  We  are  teaching  them  to 
heal  men  scientifically  in  hospitals  and  to  kill  each  other  scien- 
tifically by  machine  guns  at  frightful  cost. 

It  is  a  wonderful  time  to  live  in,  a  time  of  opportunity  and 
responsibility.  Life  changes  so  fast,  like  a  kaleidoscope,  that  more 
has  happened  in  your  short  lifetime  than  in  all  dull  Methusaleh's 
or  strenuous  Julius  Caesar's.  There  never  was  so  romantic,  so 
fascinating  a  time  to  live  in,  when  even  a  common,  poor  boy  might 
grow  to  such  influence  that  he  could  help  shape  the  course  of 
nations  around  the  globe. 

The  knowledge  that  was  sufl&cient  for  the  nineteenth  century 
will  not  suffice  for  us.  We  must  have  not  only  more  knowledge 
of  electricity  and  aviation  and  apple  raising,  but  a  great  deal  more 
knowledge  of  that  very  complex  thing — human  nature.  Lack  of 
knowledge  of  how  other  people  think  and  feel,  means  loss  of  trade 
and  often  fearful  cost  for  armaments.  Lack  of  knowledge  that 
God  meant  this  world  to  be  a  family  of  nations  has  been  as  costly 
as  the  lack  of  knowledge  in  old  times  that  dirt  and  flies  and  bad 
milk  meant  disease.     This  is  getting  to  be  an  age  of  scientific 


MEAD 


485 


management  and  it  is  high  time  that  we  learned  not  only  to  lay 
bricks  scientifically,  so  as  to  save  enormous  time  and  strength,  but 
also  learned  how  to  govern,  how  to  live  together  and  how  to  carry 
on  the  world's  business  by  scientific  management. 

Sometimes  we  have  acted  in  a  scientific  way  but  not  usually. 
It  is  never  scientific  to  ignore  the  fact  that  people  keep  the  peace, 
if  preparation  is  made  beforehand  for  it.  In  181 7,  in  time  of 
peace,  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  prepared  to  keep  the 
peace  by  removing  all  battleships  from  the  Great  Lakes  and  all 
forts  along  our  border.  We  might  have  kept  them  on  both  sides, 
renewing  them  every  few  years  as  they  became  out  of  date  and 
spent  a  fabulous  amount  of  money,  but  we  should  not  have  had 
the  safety  and  peace  along  that  3000  miles  of  border  line  that  we 
have  had  since.  Two  or  three  times,  in  the  Civil  War  and  again 
in  1896,  it  would  have  been  very  easy  to  have  come  to  blows  had 
we  had  frowning  guns  and  sentries  facing  each  other.  We  have 
kept  the  peace  for  nearly  one  hundred  years  and  now  President 
Taft  means  to  keep  it  forever  by  signing  an  arbitration  treaty 
with  the  English  government,  pledging  both  parts  of  the  great 
family  of  English-speaking  people  never  again  to  shed  each  others* 
blood. 

If  we  can  by  right  management  ensure  perpetual  peace  with 
each  other,  we  shall  soon  see  that  we  can  likewise  forever  keep 
peace  with  France,  our  old  ally,  and  then  with  a  long  line  of  other 
nations  who  are  our  friends.  There  is  no  nation  which  is  not 
our  friend.  Let  us  never  forget  that  since  we  became  a  republic 
we  have  never  yet  been  attacked  but  have  begun  every  war  we 
have  ever  had. 

There  is  as  yet  no  scientific  management  that  will  prevent  all 
murders  or  riots  or  civil  wars  but,  our  United  States  has  the  glory 
of  having  worked  out  a  practical,  scientific  method  of  keeping  the 
peace  between  forty-eight  States,  by  which  the  world  as  well  can 
keep  peace  between  forty-eight  nations.  Little  Palestine  taught 
the  world  that  there  were  not  many  Gods  but  only  one.  Great 
America,  the  "melting  pot"  of  nations  has  to  teach  that  in  His 
eyes  there  is  but  one  race,  the  human  race,  and  that  all  His  chil- 
dren are  brethren.     There  are  differences  between  them  but  the 


486  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

likenesses  are  greater  than  the  dififerences.  Let  us  write  on  the 
walls  of  every  school  room  Garrison's  motto:  **My  country  is  the 
world,  my  countrymen  are  all  mankind."  As  our  families  make 
a  State  and  our  family  of  States  are  federated  to  make  a  nation, 
so  the  nations,  learning  their  lessons  from  the  States,  must  make 
a  federated  world,  a  family  of  nations. 

Washington  and  Franklin  and  the  less  than  one  hundred  men 
who  worked  behind  locked  doors  that  summer  of  1787  in  Phila- 
delphia to  make  a  Constitution  for  thirteen  quarrelsome  colonies, 
did  a  far  greater  thing  than  they  realized.  They  were  uncon- 
sciously working  out  a  method  to  federate  forty-eight  States  and 
forty-eight  nations.  They  invented  a  Supreme  Court,  without 
which  we  should  probably  have  had  several  wars  between  one 
State  and  another.  But  for  one  hundred  and  twenty-two  years 
every  quarrel  between  one  State  and  another  State  has  gone  to 
that  Supreme  Court  to  be  settled;  though  the  feuds  and  riots 
within  the  States  it  could  not  touch. 

In  1898,  Russia  had  a  terrible  war  budget.  Moreover,  a  rich, 
imperial  councillor,  named  Jean  de  Bloch,  had  written  a  marvel- 
lous book  entitled — The  Future  of  War,  which  greatly  impressed 
the  Tsar.  It  showed  how  machine  guns  and  smokeless  powder 
were  changing  the  whole  chances  of  success  in  war  and  making  it 
possible,  as  we  saw  a  few  years  later,  for  50,000  peasant  Boers  to 
hold  off  two  years  and  a  half  an  English  army  of  250,000  men. 
The  Tsar  felt  that  something  should  be  done  and  issued  a  letter 
in  August  of  that  year  that  amazed  all  Europe.  He  asked  the 
twenty-six  nations  that  had  ambassadors  at  his  court  to  send 
delegates  to  a  peace  conference.  He  showed  how  the  increased 
cost  of  armaments  was  "bringing  about  the  very  cataclysm 
they  were  designed  to  avert."  That  is,  preparations  for  war 
were  getting  nearly  as  ruinous  as  war  itself.  All  the  winter 
following  his  invitations,  meetings  were  held  all  over  England 
and,  in  the  United  States  as  the  time  approached,  clubs  and 
churches  and  chambers  of  commerce  met  and  passed  peace 
resolutions. 

On  May  18,  in  1899,  one  hundred  representatives  from  the 
twenty-six  countries  met  in  a  great  circular  hall  which  Queen 


MEAD  487 

Wilhelmina  of  Holland,  had  offered  them  at  The  Hague.  Some 
of  them  joked  and  some  of  them  sneered  as  of  it  were  all  a  farce. 
But  there  were  among  the  hundred  some  earnest  men  with  hearts 
on  fire,  and  among  them,  the  distinguished  senator  from  France, 
who  will  address  you. 

Presently  they  began  work  in  three  committees.  The  public 
was  locked  out  and  the  whole  world  waited  and  prayed  and  guessed 
what  the  result  would  be.  At  one  time,  the  Conference  came  near 
collapsing,  as  Germany  seemed  unwilling  to  cooperate.  At  this 
crisis,  our  great  ambassador,  Andrew  D.  White,  sent  Mr. 
Holls,  the  secretary  of  the  delegation,  to  Berlin,  to  see  the  diplo- 
mats, who  were  amazed  to  find  Americans  cared  so  much  about 
the  Conference.  Among  the  piles  of  letters  and  telegrams  from 
America  which  he  showed  them,  was  a  prayer  written  by  a  bishop 
of  Texas  for  the  Conference,  to  be  prayed  by  thousands  of  wor- 
shippers every  Sunday  while  the  Conference  sat.  This  made 
those  Germans  pause.  They  saw  that  we  really  cared  as  to  what 
was  being  done  there  at  The  Hague;  they  consequently  told  the 
Kaiser  and  he  removed  the  obstructions. 

The  result  of  those  two  months  of  hard  work  by  the  delegates 
speaking  in  French,  the  official  language  of  the  Conference,  was 
not  what  the  Tsar  asked  for,  i.e.,  discovery  of  a  way  to  lessen 
armaments,  but  rather  provision  for  what  must  logically  precede 
that.  This  was  a  Permanent  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  with  a  long 
list  of  judges  from  different  countries,  five  of  whom  would  be 
selected  to  hear  any  case  that  any  two  of  the  nations  wanted  to 
send  to  it.  Shortly  afterwards,  our  "star  spangled  Scotchman," 
as  Mr.  Carnegie  is  sometimes  called,  gave  $1,500,000  to  erect  a 
handsome  building  for  the  Tribunal  and,  though  the  sceptics 
began  to  scoff  because  no  nation  sent  a  case  for  many  months, 
President  Roosevelt  and  President  Diaz  had  the  first  case  arbi- 
trated in  much  less  time  than  it  took  our  Supreme  Court  at  Wash- 
ington to  get  its  first  case. 

The  Tribunal  was  opened  in  19 10  and  the  terrible  war  in  the 
East  soon  followed,  although  the  Tsar  had  not  expected  it.  Had 
the  world  been  a  little  better  organized  it  might  have  been  pre- 
vented.    In  the  midst  of  it  the  Russian  fleet  fired,  one  dark  night, 


488  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

upon  some  poor  English  fishermen  in  the  North  Sea  and  so  en- 
raged England  that  many  shrieked  for  war.  But  France  reminded 
England  and  Russia  that  at  The  Hague,  in  1899,  they  had  pro- 
vided for  inquiry  as  well  as  arbitration  and  it  invited  the  Russian 
admiral  and  the  surviving  fishermen  over  to  Paris  to  tell  their 
stories  to  an  impartial  commission.  The  latter  decided  that  this 
"Doggerbank"  disaster  was  a  blunder,  but  asked  the  Russians  to 
pay  $350,000  to  the  widows  and  orphans.  They  gladly  did  it, 
though  nothing  but  public  sentiment  compelled  them  to. 

A  few  months  later.  President  Roosevelt,  recalling  that  at  The 
Hague,  in  1899,  provision  was  also  made  for  mediation,  played 
the  mediator  and  brought  the  Russian  and  Japanese  diplomats 
over  here  to  sign  the  Portsmouth  treaty  of  peace.  In  half  a 
dozen  years  after  the  prophecy  by  a  distinguished  American  that 
"no  one  living  would  live  long  enough  to  ever  see  a  Permanent 
International  Tribual  of  Arbitration,"  that  Tribunal  was  doing 
business  and  one  war  had  been  prevented,  one  war  ended,  and  the 
nations  were  beginning  to  sign  arbitration  treaties!  Today,  about 
one  hundred  treaties  have  been  signed  agreeing  to  arbitrate  every- 
thing but  "honor"  and  "vital  interests,"  and  a  few  of  the  small 
nations  have  agreed  to  arbitrate  everything  with  each  other  as 
President  Taft  earnestly  desires  America  to  do  with  Great  Britain. 

In  1904,  President  Roosevelt,  at  the  request  of  the  Interparlia- 
mentary Union,  a  great  body  of  the  legislators  of  the  world  who 
meet  yearly  to  promote  better  relations  between  nations,  invited 
the  nations  to  a  Second  Hague  Conference.  But  this  conference 
was  delayed  for  several  reasons  until  1907,  and  then  the  Tsar 
asked  if  he  might  invite  them  and  President  Roosevelt  said  he 
would  be  delighted  to  have  him.  When  the  Second  Hague  Con- 
ference was  called,  forty-six  instead  of  twenty-six  nations  were 
invited,  including  the  South  American  republics;  all  the  civilized 
world  was  represented.  Clutching  my  precious  ticket  which  gave 
me  admission  to  the  little  gallery  over-looking  the  ancient  stone 
Hall  of  the  Knights  where  they  assembled,  I  looked  down  one 
September  day  in  1907  on  the  most  august  assembly  that  had 
ever  met  in  human  history.  I  have  seen  many  brilliant,  spectac- 
ular displays  but  none  that  m^de  the  heart  beat  and  the  eyes  fill 


MEAD 


489 


as  did  this.  Those  quiet  men,  without  uniforms  or  badges,  were 
largely  helping  to  shape  the  future  of  the  world.  Had  they  accom- 
plished nothing  more  than  get  acquainted  and  keep  perfect  court- 
esy it  would  have  been  much.  During  cold,  rainy,  summer  days 
they  labored  and  dined  together  and  telegraphed  constantly  to 
their  governments.  They  accomplished  much  that  did  not  show 
in  the  final  result  but  which  evinced  great  progress  in  ideas.  Prac- 
tical unanimity  was  needed  to  pass  any  resolution  but  sometimes 
two-thirds  or  three-fourths  agreed  and  this  marked  a  great  stride 
forward,  even  though  some  nations  still  held  back  and  prevented 
the  signing  of  an  agreement.  Many  barbarities  of  war  were 
lessened.  All  agreed  that  unfortified  places  could  not  be  bom- 
barded, and  that  force  must  not  be  used  to  collect  contractual 
debts.  Germany  had  learned  much  since  1899  ^-nd  in  1907  went 
further  than  some  other  nations.  A  prize  court,  to  settle  prizes 
captured  in  war,  and  a  new  supreme  court  of  the  nations  to  settle 
questions  by  international  law  were  decided  on,  but  as  the  strong 
and  weak  nations  could  not  agree  how  to  select  its  fifteen  judges, 
it  has  not  yet  opened. 

One  great  decision  was  to  have  a  Third  Hague  Conference  not 
later  than  191 5.  That  Third  Conference  will  go  much  further 
toward  organizing  the  world.  The  ice  is  broken  and  the  world 
is  well  on  the  way  to  accomp^lish  four  things  before  you  are  a 
grandfather  or  a  grandmother.     These  four  are: 

1.  A  regular  world  parliament. 

2.  A  supreme  court,  settling  all  quarrels  between  all  nations 
whenever  they  can  not  settle  them  peaceably  otherwise. 

3.  Executive  commissions.  There  will  probably  never  be  a 
world  president  but  many  executives  will  carry  out  the  laws. 
We  already  have  a  Universal  Postal  Union. 

4.  An  international  police.  Our  present  rival  armies  are  not 
a  police  and  will  gradually  diminish,  and  a  few  soldiers  and  war 
ships  of  the  different  nations  will  unite  to  keep  in  order  any  nation 
that  attacks  another  and  thus  act  as  real  police. 

When  this  is  achieved,  we  shall  be  ready  for  the  first  time 
to  have  a  fair  chance  for  civilization.  If  you  want  to  share  in  the 
most  inspiring  and  hopeful  work  the  world  has  now  on  hand, 


490  THIRD   AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

just  study  how  you  can  help  our  country  do  a  prodigious  work  of 
peace  education  in  the  precious  four  years  before  1915. 

Chairman  Van  Sickle  then  introduced  Senator  La  Fontaine  of 
Belgium,  President  of  the  Permanent  International  Peace  Bureau, 
who  spoke  of  the  "Relation  of  Education  to  the  Cause  of  the 
World's  Peace."  The  presence  of  this  distinguished  visitor,  and 
his  illuminating  address,  were  of  advantage  in  directing  the  atten- 
tion of  teachers  and  students  to  the  peace  movement. 
•    Music  was  furnished  by  the  public  school  choruses. 

In  conjunction  with  the  Third  National  Peace  Congress,  a 
special  session  was  held  on  Friday,  May  5,  at  8.15  p.m.,  in  McCoy 
Hall,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  at  which  time  an  Inter- 
state Oratorical  Contest  was  conducted  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Intercollegiate  Peace  Association.  The  Presiding  Ofl&cer  was 
Dean  William  P.  Rodgers,  of  the  Cincinnati  School  of  Law.  The 
Judges,  appointed,  to  determine  the  winner  of  the  First  Prize  of 
$75,  and  the  Second  Prize  of  $50,  given  by  the  Intercollegiate 
Peace  Association,  for  the  best  original  speech  on  some  subject 
bearing  upon  the  general  question  of  Peace,  were:  Hon.  Henry 
Stockbridge,  Judge  of  the  Maryland  Court  of  Appeals;  Professor 
Charles  W.  Hodell,  Ph.D.,  of  Goucher  College;  Mr.  James  A.  C. 
Bond,  of  Westminster,  Md. ;  Mr.  Alpheus  H.  Snow,  of  Washington, 
D.C.;  President  Thomas  Fell,  of  St.  John's  College,  Annapolis, 
Md. 

The  following  persons  spoke  on  the  subjects  announced:  C.  L. 
Saxby,  Beloit  College,  Wisconsin,  "The  Evolution  of  Peace;" 
Stanley  H.  Howe,  Albion  College,  Michigan,  "The  Hope  of 
Peace;"  Wayne  Calhoun,  Illinois  Wesleyan  University,  "War 
and  the  Man;"  Charles  M.  Anderson,  University  of  Notre  Dame, 
Indiana,  "America  and  Universal  Peace;"  C.  M.  Lodge,  Dick- 
inson College,  Pennsylvania,  "The  Proposed  Court  of  Arbitral 
Justice;"  L.  B.  Bobbitt,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  "Patriotism 
and   Peace." 

The  first  prize  was  awarded  to  Stanley  H.  Howe,  of  Albion 
College,   Michigan. 


MEAD 


491 


The  second  prize  was  awarded  to  L.  B.  Bobbitt,  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University. 

The  meeting  of  the  Third  American  Peace  Congress  in  Baltimore 
was  coincident  with  the  meeting  of  the  American  Chamber  of 
Commerce  in  Paris,  France,  and  a  telegram  was  received  in  Balti- 
more setting  forth  resolutions  adopted  by  the  American  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  Paris  favoring  the  proposal  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  in  favor  of  the  submission  to  arbitration  of  any 
difference  which  the  United  States  of  America  may  have  with 
any  other  nation.     Those  resolutions  are  as  follows: 

Resolved  that  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  State  of  New 
York  urges  the  negotiation  of  treaties  with  Great  Britain,  France 
and  other  leading  nations,  such  as  shall  establish  (to  use  the 
language  of  President  Taft)  "positive  agreements  to  abide  the 
adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral  in  every  issue  which 
cannot  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter  what  it  involves, 
whether  honor,  territory,  or  money;"  and  be  it  further 

Resolved  that  this  Chamber  believes  that  such  treaties  are  the 
necessary  step  toward  a  material  reduction  in  the  size  and  cost 
of  national  armaments,  and  that  such  reduction  is  imperatively 
needed  for  the  relief  of  heavy  burdens  and  the  doing  away  of 
causes  of  social  unrest;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved  that  copies  of  these  resolutions  and  the^  accompanying 
report  be  transmitted  to  the  President  and  Vice-President  of  the 
United  States,  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  of  the  Senate  and  the  British  and  French  Ambassadors 
at  Washington;  and  that  the  cooperation  of  leading  Chambers  of 
Commerce  in  England  and  France  be  solicited.     And 

Whereas  recently  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  again 
recommended  the  high  desirability  of  making  international  treat- 
ies for  the  purpose  of  establishing  international  arbitration  in 
every  issue  which  cannot  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter  what  it 
involves,  whether  honor,  territory  or  money;  now  therefore  be  it 

Resolved  that  the  American  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Paris, 
assembled  in  general  meeting  this  third  day  of  May  1911,  wel- 
comes the  proposal  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  favor 


492  THIRD  AMERICAN   PEACE    CONGRESS 

of  the  submission  to  arbitration  of  any  difference  which  the  United 
States  of  America  may  have  with  any  other  nation,  and  records 
its  earnest  and  sincere  hope  that  treaties  may  be  concluded  em- 
bodying the  affirmation  of  this  method  of  securing  the  peaceful 
solution  of  international  disagreements;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved  that  copies  of  these  Resolutions  be  transmitted  to  the 
American  Ambassador  in  Paris  and  to  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  the  State  of  New  York. 

Paris,  May  third,  1911, 

(Seal)  (Signed)  Wm.  S.  Hogan, 

Honorary  Secretary. 

The  International  Medical  Association  Against  War  conveyed 
by  telegram  through  its  President,  Doctor  Riviere,  greetings  and 
best  wishes  to  the  Peace  Congress  in  Baltimore. 

The  National  Society  of  the  Sons  of  the  American  Revolution, 
meeting  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  conveyed  through  its  President- Gen- 
eral, Mr.  Wm.  A.  Marble,  greetings  to  the  Peace  Congress. 

The  American  Peace  Society  of  Japan  cabled  greetings  and  good 
wishes  from   Yokohoma,   Japan. 

The  Japan  Peace  Society  cabled  greetings  and  best  wishes 
from  Tokio,  Japan,  signed  by  Count  Okuma. 

The  Pacific  Coast  Peace  Conference  telegraphed  from  River- 
side,  California,  a  message  of  greeting. 

A  similar  message  was  received  from  the  Denver  Convention 
League,  signed  by  Hon.  John  F.  Shafroth,  Governor. 

The  National  Council  of  Jewish  Women  through  its  President 
telegraphed  from  Providence,  R.  L,  a  message  of  greeting. 

A  similar  telegram  was  received  from  the  Baltimore  Section 
of  the  Council  of  Jewish  Women. 

The  Commercial  Association  of  Cincinnati  through  its  Secretary, 
and  the  Manufacturers'  Club  through  its  President  telegraphed 
greetings,  and  expressed  interest  in  the  work  of  the  Congress. 

The  Military  Order  of  the  Loyal  Legion  presented  through  its 
Commander  and  Recorder  a  complimentary  minute  which  was 
read  at  the  Congress.  This  endorsement  of  Peace  by  such  an 
organization  was  encouraging. 


MEAD 


493 


The  North  Carolina  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs  sent  a  mes- 
sage of  greeting,  and  pledged  support. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  through  its  President,  Mr. 
Samuel  Gompers,  extended  greetings,  and  promised  cooperation. 

The  President  of  the  Brotherhood  of  St.  Paul,  Baltimore,  pre- 
sented  the  following  resolutions: 

1.  That  this  Brotherhood  favors  the  negotiation  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  of  an  unlir&ited  arbitration  con- 
vention as  proposed  by  President  Taft. 

2.  That  this  Brotherhood  favors  the  beginning  by  our  Depart- 
ment of  State  of  a  revision  of  the  existing  arbitration  conventions 
of  the  United  States  with  other  nations  with  a  view  to  securing 
such  unlimited  arbitration  treaties  with  all. 

The  British  National  Peace  Council  through  its  Secretary 
expressed  cordial  greetings,  as  follows: 

"Your  Congress  meets  at  an  important  moment  in  the  Peace 
Movement.  America  has,  through  President  Taft,  given  a  strik- 
ing lead  warmly  reciprocated  in  this  country.  The  work  which 
the  peace  organizations  have  been  doing  through  many  years  is, 
we  trust,  to  be  crowned  with  a  great  success.  The  permanent  and 
full  treaty  between  the  States  and  Britain  will,  when  established, 
be  the  first,  we  hope,  of  a  long  series  to  be  formed  with  all  the 
civilized  nations  of  the  world.  I  earnestly  hope  you  will  have  the 
most  successful  of  gatherings." 


INDEX 


Abbas  Effendi,  teachings  of,  444. 

Abbott,  Lyman,  address  of,  247;  Presiding 
Officer,  247,  252,  267,  27s,  288;  patriotism, 
460;  quoted,  xviii. 

Abdul-Baha  Abbas,  444. 

Abolition  of  trial  by  battle,  275. 

Adams,  Samuel,  peace  instructions  of,  362. 

Addams,  Jane,  on  peace,  416. 

Address  to  teachers  of  Maryland,  473. 

Advocate  of  Peace,  The,  186. 

Alabama  Claims,  32,  196,  377. 

Alaska,  maps  of,  202;  Panhandle  of,  204;  con- 
cession of  part  of,  204. 

Aliens,  status  of,  100. 

America,  arbitration  and,  410;  duty  of,  xxvi. 

America  as  peacemaker,  354,  359. 

American  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Paris, 
resolutions  of,  492. 

American  Federation  of  Labor,  494. 

American  Journal  of  International  Law,  211. 
^^^merican  Peace  Commission,  115. 

American  Peace  Congress,  389,  395. 

American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League,  227. 

American  Peace  Society,  353;  duties  of  field 
secretary,  229. 

American  Peace  Society  of  Japan,  493. 

American  School  Peace  League,482;  educa- 
tion by,  268;  teaching  and,  270;  articles 
concerning,  272;  international  council  of, 

273- 

American  Society  of  International  Law,  210. 

Andrews,  F.  F.,  address  of,  267;  quoted,  xxxv. 

Angell,  Norman,  on  commercial  relations, 
337;  on  war,  476. 

Anglo-American  leadership  for  peace,  134. 

Anglo- Japanese  alliance,  307. 

Appropriations  for  war  by  Congress,  366. 

Arbitration,  all-inclusive,  386;  contract  debts 
and,  167;  definition  of,  30;  growth  of,  97; 
Hague  Conference  and,  488;  interdepend- 
ence in,  102,  251;  Latin-American  and,  27; 


limitations  of,  100;  no  reservation  in,  102; 
objections  to,  144-146;  panacea  of,  249;  res- 
olutions on,  492;  scope  of,  xxiii;  theory  of, 
143;  treaties  of,  481. 

Arbitration  treaty  of  1897,  335. 

Arbitration  treaty  with  England,  2, 11, 12,  21 , 
134,   213,   262. 

Argentina  and  Uruguay,  relations  of,  27. 

Argument  from  Hobbes'  Leviathan,  an,  147. 

Armament  as  a  guarantee  of  peace,  119. 

Armaments,  cost  of,  xxxiii,  253,  357;  increase 
of  wealth  and,  369;  limitations,  xxxiv,  5, 
388;  purpose  of,  68. 

Argentine  and  Chile,  peace  between,  376. 

Army  life,  attraction  of,  71-73. 

Army  and  Navy  Journal,  on  School  Peace 
League,  339. 

Asquith,  on  peace,  365. 

Aurelius,  Marcus,  on  cooperation,  467. 

Bahai,  The  Movement:  a  teaching  of  peace 

443- 
Bahai,  The  teachings  of,  445;  spread  of,  446; 

ordinances  of,  447;  influences  of,  448-451. 
Bahai'o'llah,  words  of,  443;  life  of,  444. 
Bahais  of  America,  greetings  of,  443. 
Baker,  T.  S.  address  of,  88;  quoted  xxxvii. 
Baldwin,  Judge,  on  postal  service,  457. 
Baltimore,  402. 

Barrett,  John,  address  of,  181. 
Bartholdt,  Richard,  address  of,  142. 
Battleship  circular,  241. 
Beals,  C.  E.,  addresses  of,  229,  451;  remarks 

of,  394, 396. 
Behring  Sea  Arbitration,  32. 
Belgium,  neutrality  of,  373. 
Berthing,  Karl,  on  conscription,  70. 
Bismarck,  on  a  God  of  battles,  279. 
Black,  Mrs.  Elmer  E.,  address  of,  226. 
Black  Sea,  neutralization  of,  373. 
Blackstone,  on  war,  279;  excuse  of,  280. 


495 


496 


THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE  CONGRESS 


Bloch,  Jean  de,  on  war,  487. 

Board  of  international  hospitality,  221. 

Boatwright,  F.  W.,  address  of,  173;  quoted, 
XXX  vi. 

Bolingbroke,  on  cosmopolitanism,  467. 

Borchard,  E.  M.,  address  of,  96;  quoted,  xxiv. 

Bourgeois,  on  compromise,  35;  on  field  of 
Hague  Tribunal,  36. 

Boundaries,  delimitation  of,  xix;  importance 
of  fixed,  435 ;  menace  of  disputed,  436;  res- 
olution on  settlement  of,  390;  of  the  United 
States,  351. 

Bovio,  on  the  internationalized  patriot,  468. 

Boys  and  Militancy,  93. 

Brewer,  Justice,  on  peace  forces,  216. 

British  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  of  1870,  334. 

British  National  Peace  Council,  494. 

Brotherhood  of  man,  415. 

Brotherhood  of  St.  Paul,  resolutions  of,  494. 

Brooks,  S.  P.,  address  of,  324. 

Bryan,  W.  J.,  on  patriotism,  464. 

Bureaus,  international,  456-459. 

Burritt,  Elihu,  memory  of,  465;  on  interde- 
pendence, 468. 

Burton,  T.  E.,  address  of,  178;  Presiding  Offi- 
cer, 178,  181,  185,  187,  190,  195,  200,  209, 
213,  222,  225,  229,  243,  246. 

Business  man.  The,  in  world  politics,  439. 

Business  men,  and  peace  425;  and  war,  322. 

"Business  is  business,"  434. 

Business  and  peace,  xxxii. 

Campbell-Bannerman,  Sir  Henry,  on  league 

of  peace,  365. 
Canada,  arbitration  by,  22;  concession  to,  204 
Can  a  nation  be  a  gentleman,  200. 
Carlyle,  on  political  economy,  303. 
Carnegie,  Andrew,  address  of,  18;  gift  of,  388, 

412;  medal  for,  183;  praise  for,  401. 
Carnegie  Endowment  for  Peace,  objects  of, 

297. 
Casablanca  case,  34,  37-38. 
Causes  of  war,  250. 
Chambers  of  Commerce,  work  of,  442. 
Chicago  Association  of  Commerce  delegation 

to  Japan,  241. 
Chicago  depository  for  peace  literature,  232. 


Chicago  Peace  Society,  229;  library  of,  233; 
officers  of,  234;  work  of,  235-243. 

Chicago  Record- Herald,  peace  symposium  of, 
239- 

Chile  and  Argentine,  peace  between,  376. 

China,  boundaries  of,  436;  development  of, 
438,  partition  of,  307. 

Chinese  indemnity,  return  of,  206. 

Chinese  Peace  Society,  222. 

Chinese  students'  conference,  240. 

Chittendon,  on  peace,  218. 

Choate,  Rufus,  on  boundary  disputes,  438. 

Christ  method  of  peace  making,  467. 

Christ  of  the  Andes,  376. 

Cicero,  on  Rome,  460. 

Civil  war,  cost  of  the,  368. 

Clark,  Champ,  speech  of,  399;  quoted  xviii; 
Toastmaster,  399,  402,  404,  413,  417,  421. 

Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  372;  neutralization 
and,  122;  United  States  and,  126;  abroga- 
tion of,  127, 

Cleveland,  President,  on  Venezuelan  boun- 
dary, 435. 

Clews,  Henry,  address  of,  343. 

College,  The,  and  arbitration,  173. 

Colleges,  service  of,  54 ;  peace  lectures  at,  174. 

Collier,  Price,  address  of,  257;  quoted,  xviii 

XXV. 

Colonial  conquest,  428. 

Commerce,  influence  of,  xxxi;  predatory,  427; 

reciprocity  in,  428. 
Commercial  Association  of  Japan,  493. 
Commercial  delegations,  430. 
Commercial  organization,  influence  ot,  442. 
Commission  on  international  understanding, 

387. 
Committees,  iv. 
Compact,  state  of,  152. 
Compromise — the  great  defect  of  arbitration, 

30. 
Compromise,  tendency  to,  xxi. 
Compurgation,  282. 
Conflict  of  interests,  loi. 
Congress  of  races,  338. 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  resolution  on 

peace  by,  5. 
Congresses,  international,  430. 


INDEX 


497 


Connecticut  Peace  Society,  185;  predecessors 

of,  186. 
Conquest,  cost  of,  479. 
Constant,  d'Estournelles  de,  speech  of,  405; 

on  war,  408;  visit  of,  242. 
Constitution,  American,  487. 
Contract  debts  and  arbitration,  167. 
Contract  theory,  152,  154. 
Contribution  of  Latin  America  to  the  cause 

of  international  peace,  25. 
Cooperation  of  the  nations,  405. 
Cosmopolitanism,  89. 
Cost  of  colleges  and  battleships,  55-58. 
Cours  D' Enseignement  Pacifiste,  271. 
Court  of  arbitration,  377-379. 
Covenant,  3. 

Cracow,  neutralization  of,  373. 
Croakers,  403. 

Crosby,  Ernest,  on  patriotism,  460,  463. 
Crusades,  trial  by  battle  in,  279. 
Cuba  and  the  United  States,  85. 

Dangers  from  within,  480. 

Darby,  Dr.,  on  Jesus,  467. 

Davidson,  Thomas,  quoted,  205. 

Decatur,  Stephen,  toast  of,  460. 

DeForest,  Dr.,  on  Japan,  452,  454. 

Deimling,  General  von,  against  peace,  280. 

Delegates  and  organizations,  v-vii. 

Delos,  island  of,  374. 

Dennis,  W.  C,  address  of,  30;  cited,  xxi. 

Denver  Convention  League,  493. 

Dewey,  Admiral,  on  fortification  of  Panama 

Canal,  121. 
Disarmament,  problem  of,  317;  influences 

against,  319. 
Doing  things  well,  348. 
"Dollar  Diplomacy,"  113-115. 
Drago,  Dr.,  opinion  of,  43. 
Drummer  diplomacy,  263. 
Duelling,   end  of,    265. 
Dutton,  S.  T.,  address  of,  335,  quoted,  xxvi- 

Education,  funds  for,  368;  and  peace,  xxxv, 

94,  180,  267,  288,  410;  difference  in  347. 
Education  and  the  peace  movement,  88. 
Education  of  peace  men,  346. 


EflSciency  engineering  and  peace,  440. 

Eggleston,  Edward,  on  patriotism,  464. 

Electric  telegraph,  404. 

Eliot,  George,  on  patriotism,  460. 

Emerson  on  patriotism,  451,  468;  on  peace, 
295;  on  reform,  252. 

Emigration,   effect  of,   423. 

Enforcement  of  decisions,  155. 

England  and  the  Suez  Canal,  124. 

English  peace  society,  first,  363. 

Enlistment,  conditions  of,  69. 

E  pluribus  unum,  92. 

Erasmus,  on  humanism,  295;  on  war,  67,  77. 

Estournelles  de  Constant,  Baron  d',  speech 
of,  405;  on  war,  408. 

Ethics,  standard  of,  414. 

Eugenics,  definition  of,   72. 

Events  in  connection  with  the  peace  move- 
ment since  the  previous  congress,  45. 

Evolution,  law  of,  416. 

Evolution  of  mankind,  459. 

Executive    commissions,    490. 

Expenditures  of  the  United  States,  469. 

Fairchild,    Milton,   address  of,    288;    cited 

XXX  vi. 
Family  of  nations,  484. 
Farrer,  Anson,  on  army  life,  71. 
Federation,  world,  8;  means  of,  9;  essentials 

of,  xxii. 
Filibustering,  171,  173. 
First  peace  society,  481. 
Force  in  government,   477. 
Foreign  capital  in  the  United  States,  432. 
Foreign  investments,  429. 
Foreign  loans  and  war,  139. 
Foreign  policy  of  the  United  States,  359 
Foster,  J.  W.,  address  of,  331;  cited  xxiv;  on 

Monroe  Doctrine,  163;  Presiding  OflQcer 

334,  342,  343,  346,  353. 
Fourth  Lateran  Council,  286. 
Franklin,  on  federation,  20;  on  war  362,  478 
Frankpledge,  276. 
Freeman,  on  world  federation,  8. 
Fulfilment  of  the  dream  of  brave  dreamers, 

467. 
Future  of  war,  The,  487. 


498 


THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE  CONGRESS 


Gallatin,  on  results  of  arbitration,  32. 

Galton,  on  eugenics,  72. 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  motto  of,  468,  487. 

Geographic  delimitation  of  international 
boundaries,   435. 

George  Junior  Republic,  351. 

Geneva  Arbitration  Tribunal,  333;  award  of, 
358. 

Genius  of  democracy,  358. 

Germany,  hatred  of,  for  France,  461. 

Ghent  treaty  anniversary,  214. 

Gibbon,  on  Roman  peace,  156. 

Gibbons,  James  Cardinal,  address  of,  i. 

Gifts  for  peace,  49. 

Ginn,  Edward,  address  of,  317;  gift  of,  388. 

Gladstone,  on  Alabama  Claims,  377,  252. 

Goepp,  Carl,  on  world  federation,  90,92. 

Goethe,  cosmopolitanism  of,  89. 

Golden  age,  275. 

Government  and  force,  477. 

Government  of  great  cities,  402,  403. 

Grant,  General,  reference  to,  343,  346. 

Great  Design  of  Henry  IV,  96. 

Great  Illusion,  The,  476. 

Great  Lakes,  neutrality  of  the,  375,  486. 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  on  arbitration  treaty,  12, 
355;  on  armaments,  151;  on  court  of  arbi- 
tration, 378;  on  "Great  Illusion;"  work 
of,  385. 

GriflSn,  E.  H.,  address  of,  147;  quoted  xxix, 

XXX. 

Grotius,  influence  of,  99. 

Gundobald  of  Burgundy,  edict  of,  278. 

Gun  patriotism,  463. 

Hague  Conference,  xxii,  4-5,  359,  458;  begin- 
ning of,  487;  description  of,  480;  results  of, 
46-48;  war  restrictions  by,  281;  work  of, 
335i  417;  work  of  second,  489;  programme 
for  third,  481 ;  work  for  third,  388. 

Hague  Convention,  articles  of,  43 ;  unanimity 
in,  42. 

Hague  Court,  xxii,  404;  first  case  at  the, 
411. 

Hague  Tribunal  and  compromise,  36. 

Haines,  P.  C,  on  fortification  of  Panama 
Canal,  121. 

Haiti  and  Santo  Domingo,  17. 


Hale,  E.  E.,  on  United  States  as  a  peace  socie- 
ty, 355,  416. 

Hammond,  J.  H.,  speech  of,  42";;  reference  to 
440;  Presiding  Officer,  425,426,  433,  438, 
443,  451,  469,  471;  cited,  xxxii. 

Harrison,  President,  on  judicial  decision,  36. 

Hart,  W.  O.,  paper  of,  105;  cited,  xxiii. 

Hartman,  Mr.,  remarks  of,  393,  394,  396. 

Hay,  John,  on  foreign  policy,  359;  on  war, 
363. 

Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  371,  372;  neutral- 
ization and,  121,  127,  128;  defeat  of,  127, 
134;  revision  of,  127. 

Hayes,  Mr.,  remarks  of,  395,  397. 

Henderson,  D.  B.,    on  war,  400. 

Herbert,  George,  quoted,  266. 

Hereford,  Bishop  of,  on  the  United  States, 
361. 

Hero,  greatest  French,  76. 

History,  wrong  teaching  of,  475. 

Hobbes,  concepts  of,  147-155;  points  illus- 
trated from,  156;  state  of  war  of,  xxix. 

Hobson,  on  preparation,  367. 

Hoen,  F.  N.,  remarks  of,  399. 

Holland,  on  Suez  Canal,  122. 

Holt,  Hamilton,  address  of,  4,  resolution  by, 
395;  remarks  of,  397;  quoted,  xvi,  xxii, 
xxiii;  Presiding  Officer,  i,  4,  12,  17,  24,  29, 
44,  SO. 

Holy  Alliance,  159. 

Horace,  on  cosmopolitanism,  467;  on  father- 
land, 469,  467. 

How  commerce  promotes  peace,  427. 

How  to  avoid  and  prevent  war  and  how  to 
secure  and  maintain  peace,  195. 

Huckle,  Oliver,  remarks  of,  392. 

Hugo,  Victor,  on  a  cannon  ball,  360;  proph- 
ecy of,  14. 

Hull,  W.  I.,  address  of,  275;  cited  xxvi. 

Human  development,  325. 

Human,  Harvest,   The,  476. 

Humphrey,  Mr.,  remarks  of,  397. 

Hunda,  Mr.,  address  of,  188. 

Illinois  State  Oratorical  Contest,  240. 
Illustrated  lesson  in  morals,  291;  book  of, 

290. 
Immorality  of  army  life,  71. 


INDEX 


499 


Importance  of  the  geographic  delimitations 
of  international  boundaries,  434. 

Improper  interference  with  other  govern- 
ments,   168. 

Inadequacy  of  the  old   divisive  patriotism, 

459- 

India,  government  of,   258. 

Indirect  method,  346,  350. 

Industrial  heroes,  20. 

Influence  of  the  United  States  in  Spanish 
America,  159. 

Interdependence,  of  business,  478;  of  com- 
merce, 432;  of  nations,  82,  100,  474. 

Interference,     xvii. 

International  arbitration,  407. 

International  army,  318. 

International  associations,  422,  452-459. 

International  Chamber  of  Commerce,  442. 

International  code,   106-111. 

International   commerce,   427. 

International  congress  of  chambers  of  com- 
merce, 430. 

International  congresses  and  business,  455- 
458. 

International  council  of  Women,  418. 

International  court  of  arbitral  justice,  385. 

International  exhibitions,  429. 

International  finance:  a  power  for  peace,  136. 

International  Geographic  Institute,  437. 

International  Institute  of  Agriculture,  457. 

International  Institute  of  China,  222. 

International  jury  of  presentment,  284. 

International  law,  development  of,  8,  96; 
study  of,  298;  text  of,  303. 

International  Medical  Association  and  war, 

493- 
International  organization,  iii,  452. 
International  police,  200,  490. 
International  prize  court,  385. 
International  responsibility  for  international 

order,    78. 
International  understanding,  117. 
Internationalism,  xxxi,  355;  new  chapter  of, 

458;  progress  of,  453;  teaching  of,  476. 
Internationalism  as  a  science,  421. 
Internationalization,    knowledge   and,    452; 

labor  and,  453. 
Interparliamentary  Union,    115,  455,  489. 


Interstate  oratorical  contest,  491. 

Intervention,  82;  demand  for,  170;  in  Moroc- 
co, 83. 

Investments,  foreign,  in  the  United  States, 
432,  influence  of,  137-141;  war  and,  xxxiii. 

Ionian  Islands,  neutralization  of,  373;  sur- 
render of,  206. 

lyenaga.  Dr.  T.,  address  of,  304;  cited,  xxix. 

James,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  address  of,  i ;  quot- 
ed, xvi. 

James,  Wm.,  substitutes  for  war,  75,329. 

Japan,  progress  of,  305 ;  friendship  of  America 
for,  309;  peace  in  feudal,  188;  resources 
of,  259;  war  and,  409,  479. 

Japan  Peace  Society,  493;  of  New  York  City, 
188. 

Japanese  House  Tax  Case,  33. 

Jay  Treaty,   287,374. 

Jefferson,  on  Monroe  doctrine,  161;  on  war, 

363- 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  teacher,  325. 

Jesus,  method  of,  467. 

Johnson,  Dr.,  on  patriotism,  451. 

Johnston,  Sir  H.  H.,  on  Anglo-German  under- 
standing, 201. 

Jordan,  D.  S.,  on  war,  59,  476. 

Juarez,  on  peace,  30. 

Judgment  of  God,  278. 

Judicial  method,  growth  of,  98. 

Jurisdiction,  limits  of,   153. 

Justice,  conditions  of,  154;  emphasis  on,  477 
peace  and,  xviii. 

Kant,  cited,  xxvii;  rule  of,  466. 

Kinship  and  belligerency,  97. 

Kebel  and  trial  by  battle,  282. 

Kingdom  of  God  is  Within  You,  360. 

Knowledge,  influence  of,  485;  international- 
ized, 452. 

Knox,  P.  C,  on  world  federation,  8;  work  of, 
385. 

La  Fontaine,  Henri,  speech  of,  421;  address 
of,  491;  cited,  xxvi,  xxxi;  language  of,  405; 
work  of,  xxii,  408. 

Lake  Mohonk  Conference,  243,  244. 

Lammasch,  Dr.,  on  compromise,  34. 


500 


THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE  CONGRESS 


Latane,  J.  H.,  paper  of,  120;  on  neutraliza- 
tion, 373. 

Latin  America  and  arbitration,  27. 

Law,  growth  of,  xxvi,  98;  reign  of,  416. 

Law  and  order  and  international  peace,  288. 

Law  and  order  lesson,  291. 

League  of  peace,  a,  4, 387;  constitution  of,  10; 
idea  of,  9. 

Ledoux,  U.  J.,  address  of,  439;  cited,  xxxii. 

Leviathan,  Hobbes',   147. 

Lieber,  Francis,  hatred  of,  of  France,  462. 

Lincoln,  quoted,  257. 

Literature  of  the  peace  movement,  295. 

Loans  for  war,  390. 

Lockwood,  Belva  A.,  address  of,  190. 

Lord,  Eleanor  L.,  address  of,  59;  cited  xxx. 

Lorimer,  Professor,  on  development,  100. 

Louisiana  Civil  Code,   106. 

Love,  A.  H.,  address  of,  195;  remarks  of,  395. 

Lowell,  quoted,  371. 

Lower  Danube,  neutralization  of,  373. 

Loyalty  to  loyalty,  465. 

Ludlow,  Edmund,  on  fatherland,  467. 

Luxemburg,  neutralization  of,  373. 

Lynch,  Frederick,  speech  of,  413;  remarks 
by,  342;  cited,  xxiv. 

Macaulay,  on  the  state,  465. 
MacDonald,  J.  A.,  address  of,  21. 
Magna  Charta,  286. 
Magruder,  J.  W.,  address  of,  469;  on  poverty, 

xxxiii. 
Mahan,  Admiral,  on  increase  of  wealth,  369. 
Mahool,  J.  Barry,  speech  of,  403. 
Making  of  a  man-o'-warsman,  72. 
Maine,  Sir  Henry,  on  money  fines,  98. 
Maitland,  on  compensation  and  arbitration, 

98. 
Manufacturers'  Club,  493. 
Marburg,  Theodore,  paper  of,  xv;  remarks 

of,  391;  report  of,  384;  work  of,  404. 
Marshall,  John,  on  equality  of  nations,  169. 
Martens,  Prof,  de,  on  commissions,  284. 
Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  363. 
Maude,  Colonel,  on  war,  73. 
Maxim,  on  machinery  of  war,  364. 
Mead,  Edwin  D.,  address  of,  134;  remarks 

of,  391,  396,  397;  on  war,  464. 


Mead,  Lucia  A.,  addresses  of,  473,  484; 
quoted,  xxxv;  tour  of,  239. 

Men  of  will,  255. 

Mexico,  neutrality  with,  332;  war  in,  331. 

Mexico  Society  of  New  York,  220. 

Mexican  war,  cost  of,  368. 

Meyers*  Medieval  and  Modern  History,  473. 

Mihtant    spirit,    306, 

Military  Order  of  the  Loyal  Legion,  494. 

Milton,  on  peace,  402. 

Mitchell,  S.  C,  address  of,  354;  quoted,  xxv. 

Modern  investments,  478. 

Modem  wonders,  226, 

Monroe  Doctrine,  xv,  160-168,  359,  371; 
corollary  of,  329;  passing  of,  167;  Presi- 
dent Monroe  on,  161;  responsibilities   of, 

137. 

Moore,  J.  B.,  on  neutralization  and  fortifi- 
cation, 373. 

Moral  Damage  of  War,  415. 

Moral  basis  of  peace,  352. 

Morality  and  the  new  patriotism,  466. 

Mortality  of  war,  74. 

Murray,  Bishop  J.  G.,  address  of,  380;  quot- 
ed, xxviii. 

Muscat  Dhows  Case,  33. 

Mutual  concessions,    201. 

Napoleon,  on  war,  67. 

National  Arbitration  Society,  190. 

National  Council  of  Jewish  Women,  493; 
Baltimore  section  of,  493. 

National  Council  of  Women,  418-420. 

National  feeling  against  war,  407. 

National  Peace  Congress,  First,  4;  second,  5. 

National  Society  of  the  Sons  of  the  American 
Revolution,  493. 

Nationality,  354. 

Nelson,  motto  of,  461. 

Neutrahty,  Act  of,  332;  Presidents  Van 
Buren  and  Arthur  on,  332;  modifications 
of  1818,  333;  violation  of,  334. 

Neutrality,  law  of,  28;  inadequate  laws  of, 
170;  status  of  laws  of,  xxiv;  revision  of 
of  laws  of,  390. 

Neutrahzation,  canals  and,  122-133;  forti- 
fication and,  373;  Panama  Canal  and,  121- 
133;  state,  123;  territory  and,  340. 


INDEX 


501 


New  England  Peace  Congress,  465. 

Newer  Ideals  of  Peace,  416. 

Newer  propaganda  for  peace,  The,  335. 

Newfoundland  Fisheries,  336,  388. 

"New  Rome  or  the  United  States  of  the 
World,"  90. 

News,  newspapers  and,  484. 

Newspaper,  misrepresentations  of,  408,  410, 
413;  subsidies  for,  117. 

New  world  consciousness,  226. 

New  York  Peace  Society,  219,  363. 

Nineteenth  century,  task  of,  354. 

Nobel  Peace  Prize,  winner  of,  405. 

Noble,  Eugene  A.,  address  of,  294;  Presid- 
ing Officer,  294,  304,  310,  317,  324,  330. 

North  Atlantic  Coast  Fisheries  Arbitration, 

34,  43- 
North    Carolina    Federation    of    Women's 

Clubs,  494. 
Northeast  boundary  Arbitration,  32,  40. 
Norway-Sweden,  boundary  of,  33. 
Novicow,  on  conservation,  76. 

Officers,  list  of,  in. 

Olney,  Richard,  on  Monroe  Doctrine,  162. 

One  hundred  years  of  peace,  214;  anniver- 
sary of,  386. 

Opening  remarks  at  young  peoples'  meeting, 
482. 

Oratorical  contest,  491. 

O'Rell,  Max,  quoted,  399. 

Orinoco  steamship  case,  34,  41. 

Osborne,  J.  B.,  speech  of,  427,  cited,  xxxi. 

Our  duty  to  other  American  States,  169. 

Our  government  the  model,  158. 

Pacific  blockade  of  Venezuela,  166. 

Pacific  Coast  Peace  Conference,  493. 

Paish,  George,  on  foreign  investments,  432. 

Panama  Canal  in  relation  to  the  peace  move- 
ment,! 20. 

Panama  Canal,  fortification  of,  121,  344,  370, 
374;  fortification  cost  of,  131;  influence  of, 
xviii;  neutralization  of,  1 21-133;  war  status 
of,  129. 

Pan-American  Union,  xviii,  181,  359. 

Panhandle,  202-205. 

Parables  in  teaching,  325. 


Paraguayan  war,  27. 

Parker,  Theodore,  on  Mexican  War,  466. 

Passion,  danger  of  popular,  xxviii. 

Patrick,  Lucy  S.,  work  of,     192. 

Patriotism,  definition  of,  462;  of  hate,  461; 
misteachings  of,  475. 

Patriotism  in  an  international  world,  451. 

Patten,  on  surplus,  470. 

Paulson,  Mr.,  work  of,  342. 

Peace  and  Arbitration,  142. 

Peace,  creed  of,  247;  disarmament  and,  488; 
humanitarian  idea  of,  305. 

Peace  in  Asia,  304. 

Peace  in  the  Far  East,  257. 

Peace — its  evolution  and  present  status,  96. 

Peace  leaders,  list  of,  45. 

Peace  literature,  322. 

Peace  methods  with  Chinese,  224. 

Peace  movement,  7;  in  1910,  18. 

Peace  movement  and  the  American  college 
and  university,  the,  54. 

Peace  movement,  dangers  to,  96;  develop- 
ment of,  13s;  peculiarity  of,  142;  promo- 
tion of,  15. 

Peace  as  a  preventive  of  poverty,  469. 

Peace  proposals,  48. 

Peace  propaganda,  336-342;  topics  of,  341. 

Peace  societies,  49;  beginnings  of,  363;  in 
Connecticut,   186. 

Peace  symposium,   239. 

Peace  ways  and  means,  93. 

Pecuniary  claims,  386. 

People  who  lived  in  darkness  have  seen  a 
great  light,  The,  18. 

Permanent  court  of  arbitration,  283;  488. 

Philippines,  cost  of  the,  479. 

Phillips,  Wendell,  quoted,  259. 

Philosophy  of  the  American  Peace  Congress, 

XV. 

Phyong-yang,  battle  of,  305. 
Pious  Fund  Case,  33,  43. 
Piatt  Amendment,  85. 
Poesche,  Theodore,  on  world  federation,  90. 
Political  economy,  war  and,  303, 
Popular  intelligence  one  of  the  best  preven- 
tives of  war,  310 
Popular  passion,  315. 
Positive  international  program.  A,  216 


502 


THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE  CONGRESS 


Possibilities  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for 

International  Peace,  296. 
Poverty  line,  cause  of,  470. 
Prayer  for  America,  356. 
Preamble  of  Constitution,  164. 
Press,  influence  of  the,  118, 336;  shortcomings 

of  the,  261. 
Prevention  of  wars  in  Latin  America,  113. 
Pritchett,  Dr.  H.  S.,  on  efl&ciency,  356. 
Prize  winners  in  oratory,  491. 
Program  of  Peace  Congress,  ix-xii. 
Program  of  meeting  for  schools,  473,  xiii. 
Protection  of  defaulting  governments,  163. 
Psychology  of  nations,  475. 
Public  opinion,  311. 

Rayner,  Senator,  on  Monroe  Doctrine,  164. 
Reciprocity  treaty  with  Canada,  262. 
Reduction  of  armaments;  why,  when,  how? 

252. 
Reid,  Gilbert,  address  of,  222. 
Reinsch,  Professor,  on  international  unions, 

455- 

Relations  of  the  United  States  to  other  Amer- 
can  Governments,  157. 

"Remember  the  Maine,"  462. 

Remsen,  Ira,  address  of,  51;  Presiding  Officer 
54,  58,  77,  95,  112. 

Resolutions,  385-391. 

Responsibility  for  disorder,  85-88. 

Retaliation,  law  of,  276. 

Revolutionary  War,  cost  of,  367. 

Rivalry  of  nations,  250. 

Rogers,  H.  W.,  address  of,  360. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  on  fortification  of  Pana- 
ma Canal,  371;  on  Monroe  Doctrine,  163; 
on  preparation  for  war,  119;  on  seizure  of 
Panama,  120;  on  use  of  force,  10;  work  for, 

405- 
Root,  Elihu,  journey  to  South  America  182; 

on  peace,  219;  on  rule  of  law,  304;  on  war, 

300. 
Rowe,  Dr.  L.  S.,  address  of,  25;  cited,  xxv, 

xix. 
Russell,  Lord  John,  on  Alabama  claims,  379. 
Russia  and  fortification  of  Sebastopol,  loi. 


San  Juan  arbitration  32,  38. 

Santo  Domingo,  17. 

Sawaker  extradition  case,  33. 

Savoy,  neutralization  of,  373. 

School  histories,  420. 

School  Peace  League,  attack  on,  339. 

Schoolroom  in  the  peace  propaganda,  The, 

324- 
Scott,  J.  B.,  addresses  of,    210,  296;  cited 

XXX  vii. 
Second  National  Peace  Congress,  231. 
Seeck,  Dr.  Otto,  on  rooting  out,  62. 
Seeley,  Sir  John,  thesis  of,  354. 
Selection  by  war,  60. 
Senate  vote  on  arbitration  treaty,  335 
Sewall,  Mrs.  M.  W.,  speech  of,  417. 
Sharpless,    Isaac,    address    of,    346;    cited, 

xxxvi. 
Sherman,  on  war,  67,  356. 
Short,  W.  H.,  address  of,  216. 
Slayden,  J.  L.,  address  of,  157;  cited,  xix. 
Smiley,  Daniel,  address  of,  243;  cited,  xxxiv. 
Smith  Goldwin,  on  humanity,  465. 
Social  gospel,  415. 
Soldiers  of  fortune,  170. 
Some  untabulated  signs  of  world  unity,  413. 
South's  physical  recovery,  356. 
Spanish   Ambassador,   on  independence  of 

States,  82. 
Spanish  -American  War,  cost  of,  368. 
Speeches  at  the  Banquet,  399. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  quoted,  364. 
Speyer,  James,  address  of,  136;  cited,  xxxiii. 
Standing  army  as  an  educator,  70. 
State  of  nature,  148. 
State,  origin  of  the,  152;  prior  to  morality, 

154. 

Statues  to  soldiers,  400. 

Stein,  Robert,  address  of,  200;  cited,  xx. 

Stephens,  M.  Bates,  presiding  officer,  473. 

Stewart,  J.  A.,  address  of,  213. 

Stone,  M.  E.,  on  race  prejudice,  461. 

Suez  and  Panama  Canals,  analogy  between, 
128. 

Suez  Canal,  neutralization  of,  122, 373;  Eng- 
lish policy  with,  124. 


INDEX 


503 


Sumner,  Charles,  on  the  navy,  370;  on  patri- 
otism, 459;  on  "True  Grandeur  of  Na- 
tions," 366;  on  war,  363. 

Supreme  Court,  model  of,  359;  of  the  United 
States,  487;  world,  490. 

Taft,  President,  address  of,  14;  cited,  xvi; 

on   arbitral   court,   377;    message   of,   6; 

Mexican  neutrality  and,  345;  on  peace, 

217;  work  of,  21,  385,  402,  407,  473. 
Tariff  wall,  434. 
Teachers,  influence  of,  326-329. 
Teacher,  work  of  the,  473. 
Tennyson,  quoted,  401,  468. 
Territorial  adjustment  in  Europe,  99. 
Territorial  integrity,  171. 
"The  Bab,"  444. 

Thomas  World  Peace  Oration,  240. 
Thwing,  C.  F.,  address  of,  545  cited,  xxxiv, 

xixvi. 
Tittmann,  O.  H.,  cited,  435. 
Tolstoi,  despair  of,  360. 
Tourists,  spendings  of  American,  432. 
Trade  relations,  432. 
Transportation,  improved,  422. 
Travel,  influence  of,  430. 
Treaty  of  1846,  38. 
Treaty  obligations,  389. 
Treaty  of  Vienna,  373. 
Treaty  of  Washington,  1871,  377. 
Trial  by  battle,  abolition  of,  275;  champion 

in,  280;  limitation  of,  281-283. 
Trial  by  jury,  284-285. 
Tribal  morality,   277. 
Tribunal  of  justice,  380. 
Trueblood,  B.  F.,  address  of,  45;  cited,  xxiv; 

announcements  by,  177;  Presiding  Officer, 

353,  360,380,384,  394,  395,  396,  397,  398. 
Turin  international  exposition,  429. 
Turkish  students,  aid  to,  220. 
Twentieth  century,  task  of,  355. 

Unification  of  peace  forces,  207. 

Unification,  national,  99. 

United  States,  as  a  bad  debt  collector,  164; 
debt  of,  368;  leadership  of,  365;  war  appro- 
priations of,  368. 

United  States  and  the  peace  movement,  360. 


United  States  history,  483. 
United  States  of  the  world,  90-93. 
Universal  peace  impossible  without  an  inter- 
national code,  105. 
Universal  peace  resolution,  194. 
Universal  peace,  means  of,  89. 
Universal  Peace  Union,  195-196. 
Universities  and  peace,  52. 

Van  Sickle,  J.  H.,  remarks  of,  482;  Presiding 

Officer,  482,  484,  491. 
Vattel,  on  sovereignty,  168. 
Vegetius,  cited,  68. 
Vengeance,  limitation  of,  97. 
Venezuela  preferential  case,  33. 
Venezuelan  arbitration,  33;  boundary,  435, 

475- 
Verestchagin,  pictures  of,  476;  wish  of,  323. 
Vital  interest  or  honor,  386. 

Walsh,  Walter,  on  patriotism,  451;  visit  of, 

238;  on  war,  415. 
War,  agencies  for  averting,  103;  American 

feeling  against,  406;  as  collective  murder, 

65;  beginning,  478;  causes  of,  78-82,  300; 

cost  of,  150,400,476;  definition  of,  476; 

development  of,  363;  humanization  of,  98; 

losses  of,  xxx;-moral  damage  of,  415;  not 

collective  murder,  248;  psychology  of,  475; 

remedy  for,  156;  state  of,  150;  threat  of 

a  Japanese,  409;  waste  of,  xxxii,  313. 
War  and,  its  Alleged  Benefits,  76. 
War  of  181 2,  cost  of,  368. 
War  from  the  standpoint  of  Eugenics,  59. 
War  within  and  between  nations,  477. 
Warfare  as  a  natural  condition,  147. 
Warfield,  E.  D.,  address  of,   252;  quoted, 

xxxvii. 
Waring,  Colonel,  work  of,  475. 
Washington,  on  war,  362. 
Webster,  on  the  British  Empire,  3;  on  our 

country,  460;  on  Monroe  Doctrine,  162; 

on  patriotism,  451. 
Wellington,  on  war,  67. 
Wells,  H.  G.,  quoted,  67. 
Westlake,  cited,  loi. 
What  are  the  activities,  the  object  and  aims 

of  the  National  Arbitration  Society,  190. 


504 


THIRD  AMERICAN  PEACE  CONGRESS 


What  are  we  doing  for  peace  in  the  Far 
East,  257. 

What  Chicago  could  do  with  some  of  her 
war  money,  239. 

Whelpley,  J.  D.,  on  Monroe  Doctrine,  167. 

Whittier,  quoted,  200. 

Will,  Allen  S.,  address  of,  310;  cited,  xxvii. 

Williams,  Talcott,  address  of,  78;  quoted,  xvii. 

Wilson,  Huntington,  address  of,  113;  cited, 
xvi,  xx;  Presiding  Officer,  113,  133,  135, 
141,  147,  157,  172,  176. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  quoted,  311. 

Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  420. 

Woman's  part  in  the  promotion  of  inter- 
nationalism, 417. 


World  Federation  League,  440. 

World,  internationalized,  452. 

World  organization.  441. 

World  parliament,  490. 

World  Peace  Foundation,  317;  officers  of, 
320;  work  of,  320. 

World  peace,  practicality  of,  382;  profitable- 
ness of,  383. 

Wor'd  peace,  proper,  practical  and  profit- 
able, 380. 

World  State,  473. 

Wright,  Luke,  on  Japan,  479. 

Yalu,  battle  of  the,  305. 

Yates,  Charles,  address  of,  434;  cited,  xix. 


1^  ^"^mS  BORROWED 
RETURN  TO  DESK  EROM  WHICH 

LOAN  DEPT. 


\ 


LD  2lA-50m-lV60 
(B6221sl0)476B 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


■  St- 


